Allahabad High Court
GAJENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- TARUN SAXENAMUNIR
Holding
A writ petition cannot quash an FIR merely on the basis of co‑accused statements when the offence is serious and investigation is pending.
Summary
The petitioner, Gajendra Singh, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashment of an FIR dated 28 January 2026, which alleged his involvement in a narcotics offence under Sections 8, 20, 29 and 60 of the NDPS Act, based on statements of co‑accused who claimed they would deliver 113 kg of ganja to him. The High Court examined whether the FIR, merely based on co‑accused statements, warranted judicial interference. The Court held that the alleged offence is a serious societal crime requiring thorough investigation and that the FIR is a preliminary step in that process. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the FIR and dismissed the petition. The dismissal upheld the State’s right to continue its investigation under the NDPS Act.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate scope of judicial review under Article 226 concerning the quashment of an FIR filed under the NDPS Act?
- Does the mere inclusion of a person's name in a co‑accused's statement justify quashing the FIR?
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20, 29, 60, 8
Subjects
- NDPS Act
- FIR quashment
- Article 226
- Criminal writ petition
- Investigation
- Co‑accused statement
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10379 of 2026
Gajendra Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 47
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.
Heard Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Deepakh Kapoor, learned AGA on behalf of the State.
This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR dated 28.01.2026
bearing Case Crime No. 19 of 2026, under Section 8/20/29/60 of NDPS Act,
Police Station Pakbada, District Moradabad.
A perusal of the impugned FIR shows that the name of the petitioner has
figured in the statement of the co-accused from whose possession ganja, to
the tune of 113 kg. has been recovered.
In their statement, the accomplices have said that they would deliver the
narcotic to the petitioner.
Be that as it may, looking to the nature of offence which is one affecting the
society at large and the fact that in the nature of things, the matter requires
investigation, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned FIR in
exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ
petition is dismissed.
(Tarun Saxena,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)
May 6, 2026
C. MANI/ Prashant
Digitally signed by :-
CHANDRAMANI VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…