Court Emphasizes Seriousness of Allegations, Necessitating Thorough Investigation and Custodial Interrogation
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court, on March 9, 2026, dismissed a series of writ petitions seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed against multiple individuals, including petitioner Ashu, in connection with an alleged unlawful assembly that reportedly engaged in widespread violence. The division bench, comprising Justices J.J. Munir and Vinai Kumar Dwivedi, underscored the gravity of the allegations, which include acid attacks, firing, and provocative slogans, and ruled that they warrant a comprehensive investigation.
The impugned FIR, dated September 26, 2025, was filed by Dhananjay Pandey, the Station House Officer at Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly. It implicates 28 named offenders and 200-250 unnamed individuals in a violent assembly purportedly orchestrated without requisite permissions. The court found that the FIR disclosed serious offenses under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, such as Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 124(2), 121, 125, 352, 351(3), 109, 299, and 223, along with Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932.
The petitioners argued that the FIR was filed with an unexplained delay, indicating premeditation, and claimed malicious implication due to personal disputes. They also contested the FIR on the grounds of alibi, asserting that they were not present at the scene during the alleged incident. However, the court dismissed these arguments, stating that such defenses must be strictly proved during trial and not at the FIR quashing stage.
The court also addressed the contention that the FIR was a second report of the same incident, clarifying that an earlier FIR covered only a small aspect of the occurrence, whereas the impugned FIR provided a comprehensive account of the violence.
In its decision, the High Court emphasized that the allegations were too serious to be dismissed without thorough investigation. It concluded that the nature of the offenses required custodial interrogation to uncover any larger conspiracy, thereby rejecting the plea to quash the FIR.
The court vacated the interim stay previously granted in one of the connected petitions and ordered communication of the judgment to relevant state authorities for further action. This decision underscores the judiciary's stance on maintaining law and order and ensuring that serious allegations are subjected to due legal scrutiny.
Bottom Line:
Petition to quash FIR alleging unlawful assembly, widespread violence, and provocative slogans dismissed by the court as serious allegations require investigation and custodial interrogation.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 124(2), 121, 125, 352, 351(3), 109, 299, 223, Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 Section 7
Ashu v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2865414
