While refusing to quash an FIR in a criminal case of assault, the Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed the view that an investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR when it alleges a cognizable offence on the part of the accused.

The High Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 109 of BNS 2023.

Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2024), the Division Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava stated, “From a perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somjeet Mallick (supra), it emerges that when an FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, what is required to be looked at is the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to ascertain whether, prima facie, a cognizable offence has been committed or not. At this stage, the Court is not required to determine as to which specific offence has been committed. Thus, when the FIR alleges a cognizable offence on the part of the accused, the investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR.”

Advocate Kirti Veer Singh represented the Petitioner, while Government Advocate represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

As per the FIR, the petitioners had allegedly severely beaten up the complainant's elder brother, Vidya Sagar, which resulted in grievous injuries.

Arguments

It was the case of the petitioners that the injuries indicated were simple in nature, and the offence under Section 109 of the BNS 2023 was not made out. It was further contended that a civil dispute was pending between the parties, and the impugned FIR was lodged in order to give a criminal colour to the civil dispute.

Reasoning

Considering the allegations that the petitioners had assaulted the complainant's elder brother and referring to the letter which was sent to the CMO indicating that one of the injuries sustained by the victim was an injury on the head, the Bench stated, “Perusal of the FIR indicates that a cognizable offense is clearly made out against the petitioners.”

The Bench referred to a recent judgment of the Apex Court in Accamma Sam Jacob vs. State of Karnataka and another etc (2026) wherein it has been held that merely because an attempt is made to indicate that there is only a civil dispute between the parties, the same may not restrain the Court inasmuch as even a civil dispute may carry an element of a criminal nature

The Bench thus mentioned, “In the instant case, even if a civil dispute may be pending between the parties the same cannot and will not give a license to the petitioners to indulge into the incident which has been committed by them i.e. of having severely assaulted various persons including Sri Vidya Sagar which as per the injuries indicated by the Police Station itself also indicate that they are serious in nature.”

Thus, holing that no case was made out warranting interference, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Devendra Kumar Singh And 5 Others State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:26045-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Kirti Veer Singh, Abhishek Singh, Ravi Shanker Singh

Respondent: Government Advocate, Advocates Aman Thakur, Vineet Tripathi

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Abdul MoinJustice Pramod Kumar Srivastava

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.