The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed the principle that courts must refrain from interfering with ongoing criminal investigations unless the FIR is patently devoid of any legal basis. In dismissing a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and interim protection from arrest, the Court emphasized that such extraordinary powers under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC are to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sachin Kumar, has challenged two criminal proceedings: (i) FIR No. 74/2026 registered at Police Station Khatoli, District Muzaffarnagar, under Sections 109(1), 351(3), 352, and 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS); and (ii) the impending arrest in connection with FIR No. 249/2025 registered at Police Station Sarai Mamrej, Ganganagar (Prayagraj Commissionerate), under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), and 117(2) BNS. The petitioner claims he has been falsely implicated in both cases.
Key Facts
- The FIR dated 16.03.2026 alleges that the petitioner, along with one Shubham and three unknown persons, abused the victim and discharged a firearm, causing injury.
- The second FIR dated 17.12.2025 pertains to a separate incident involving the same petitioner and relates to alleged offences under BNS.
- The victim in the first FIR sustained a gunshot injury, as confirmed by the prosecution.
- The investigation in both cases is currently underway.
- No charge sheet has been filed as of the date of the judgment.
Procedural History
- 16.03.2026: FIR No. 74/2026 registered at Police Station Khatoli, Muzaffarnagar.
- 17.12.2025: FIR No. 249/2025 registered at Police Station Sarai Mamrej, Prayagraj.
- 2026: Writ Petition No. 11809 of 2026 filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking:
- Quashing of FIR No. 74/2026
- Stay on arrest in connection with FIR No. 249/2025
- 09.06.2026: Judgment delivered by the Division Bench.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- A writ of certiorari to quash FIR No. 74/2026.
- A writ of mandamus to restrain the police from arresting him during the investigation in FIR No. 249/2025.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
Shri Abhay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in both cases. He argued that the allegations in the FIR are baseless, lacking credible evidence, and that the petitioner’s arrest would cause irreparable harm to his reputation and liberty.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Advocate (AGA), on behalf of the State, submitted that the FIR discloses a cognizable offence involving serious injury from a firearm. The prosecution asserted that the materials available at this stage establish a prima facie case, warranting a full investigation. The AGA emphasized that the investigation is still in progress and that staying the arrest would risk tampering with evidence and flight of accused persons.
The Legal Issue
Can a High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC, quash an FIR or grant interim protection from arrest during the pendency of an ongoing investigation, where the allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the doctrine of abuse of process and argued that the FIR is frivolous and lacks any factual foundation. He contended that the petitioner’s involvement is entirely fabricated and that the court should intervene to prevent harassment. He invoked the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal to argue that the case falls within the first category of cases where quashing is permissible - where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not constitute an offence.
For the Respondent
The State countered that the FIR clearly discloses a cognizable offence under BNS involving grievous hurt by discharge of a firearm. The AGA submitted that the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure has held that interim orders restraining arrest or investigation during the pendency of a quashing petition must be avoided unless the case is exceptional. The State further argued that the petitioner’s remedy lies in seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, not in seeking a stay on investigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It emphasized that the power to quash criminal proceedings is not a general remedy but an extraordinary one, to be invoked only in the rarest of rare cases.
"The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint..."
The Court cited Bhajan Lal to reiterate that quashing is permissible only where the allegations, even if accepted as true, do not constitute an offence, or where there is an express legal bar to prosecution. The Court found that the allegations in FIR No. 74/2026 - involving discharge of a firearm resulting in injury - prima facie constitute cognizable offences under BNS. The Court declined to assess the credibility of the complainant or the veracity of the allegations at this stage, noting that such evaluation is the domain of the trial court.
Regarding the prayer for interim stay on arrest, the Court relied on Neeharika Infrastructure, which held that:
"...an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or 'no coercive steps to be adopted'..."
The Court observed that the investigation was active, evidence was yet to be fully collected, and the petitioner had not approached the competent court for anticipatory bail. Granting interim protection at this stage would undermine the investigative process and set a dangerous precedent.
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s remedy, if he believes he is being falsely implicated, lies in seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, not in seeking to stifle the investigation.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court declined to quash FIR No. 74/2026 and refused to grant any interim protection from arrest in connection with FIR No. 249/2025. The Court held that the investigation must proceed without interference, and the petitioner may seek anticipatory bail before the appropriate court under Section 438 CrPC.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Stay on Arrest Is Not a Substitute for Anticipatory Bail
- Practitioners must advise clients to approach the Sessions Court or High Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC before seeking quashing of FIRs.
- Courts will not entertain applications for stay on arrest during investigation unless the FIR is legally unsustainable on its face.
- Filing a writ petition solely to delay investigation is likely to be viewed as an abuse of process.
Quashing Requires More Than Allegations of False Implication
- Mere assertion of false implication is insufficient to invoke quashing powers.
- The petitioner must demonstrate that the allegations, even if accepted as true, do not constitute any offence under the law.
- Courts will not delve into evidentiary disputes at the FIR stage - such matters are for trial.
Investigation Must Proceed Unimpeded Absent Exceptional Circumstances
- Once a cognizable offence is disclosed, the police are duty-bound to investigate.
- High Courts must avoid passing interim orders that halt investigations, even if a quashing petition is pending.
- The burden is on the accused to seek bail, not on the State to justify arrest.
