The Allahabad High Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Court for seeking appropriate remedies under the law. File
| Photo Credit: Getty Images
The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash an FIR related to the September 26 Bareilly violence.
A division bench comprising Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Garima Prasad, in an order dated November 13, disposed of the plea filed by one Adnan, observing that the petitioner was free to avail other legal remedies.
The petitioner, named as an accused in the Bareilly violence case, had sought quashing of the FIR dated September 26 lodged at the Baradari police station.
Also Read: What was behind the ‘I Love Muhammad’ movement? | Explained
The writ petition was opposed by the State counsel, who argued that the charges against the accused – which include attacks on police personnel with brickbats, acid bottles and firearms – constitute a grave threat to the rule of law.
As per the prosecution’s case, on September 26, Maulana Tauqeer Raza had allegedly given a call to members of a particular community to assemble at the Islamiya Inter College in Bareilly.
Despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita being in force, a crowd of around 200-250 people gathered. The crowd, holding ‘I love Muhammad’ placards and raising slogans, allegedly ignored the directions of police personnel who tried to pacify the mob.
The situation escalated when the mob allegedly became aggressive after being stopped. Brickbats, stones and acid bottles were thrown at the police from among the crowd and gunshots were also fired, the FIR read.
In the ensuing violence, the clothes of police personnel were torn and two officers sustained injuries, it added.
The State counsel contended that offences of this nature could have cascading effects if not dealt with, and create a threat to public safety and order.
The State counsel cited several Supreme Court judgments to argue that any interim relief at this stage may hamper the investigation.
After some argument, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner does not wish to press the relief for quashing of the FIR.
Consequently, the relief was declined by the Court.
The Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Court for seeking appropriate remedies under the law.
Published – November 21, 2025 11:25 am IST
