Allahabad High Court
CRLP/20506/2026 of IMRAN AND 2 OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS on 7 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20506 of 2026 Court No. - 44 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri J.N. Shukla holding brief of Sri Ekansh Varma and the learned AGA for the State. 2. Although
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20506 of 2026
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri J.N. Shukla holding brief of Sri Ekansh Varma and the learned AGA for the State.
2. Although prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report registered on 10.8.2026 as Case Crime No. 75 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Moradabad, but at the time when the matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioners confines his relief to grant of protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
3. We have perused the the First Information Report which prima facie discloses cognizable offence and, therefore, the prayer made to quash F.I.R. otherwise cannot be entertained in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315.
4. We are of the view that no interference is warranted.
5. However, considering the fact that all offences, mentioned in the present case, are punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, authorities are directed to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ekansh Varma, Pankaj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Imran And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
6. It is expected of the Police not to harass the petitioners till the conclusion of the investigation in any manner whatsoever. However, the petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. September 8, 2026 PK CRLP No. 20506 of 2026 2 (Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad