BHUPENDRA SAHUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18818 of 2026

Bhupendra Sahu
                                                                .....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                              .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                          :    Anurag Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)                          :    G.A.

Court No. - 49
                 HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.
                 HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

Shri Anurag Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the F.I.R. is
liable to be quashed.

Learned AGA contends that briefly put the prosecution case set
out in the F.I.R is that the F.I.R. arises out of a forging of
remand papers and misusing the same with a view to obtain
unlawful benefit. The offence pollutes the stream of justice.

Learned AGA submits that the F.I.R. as well as the materials in
the record disclose prima facie commission of the offences and
warrant a thorough investigation into the same. The
investigation is on foot. Staying the arrest of petitioner at this
stage would impede the investigation, cause loss or
disappearance of evidence and would be in the teeth of the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal reported at 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Neeharika
Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others reported at (2021) 19 SCC 401.

In Bhajan Lal (Supra) the Supreme Court held as under:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of
the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this
Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
                                                           CRLP No. 18818 of 2026
                                  2


under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which
we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to
the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
                                                            CRLP No. 18818 of 2026
                                  3


where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that 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 and that the
extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the
court to act according to its whim or caprice."

The Supreme Court in Neeharika (supra) expounded the law as
under:

"33.16. The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid
aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an
interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section
482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, 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" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail
under Section 438CrPC before the competent court. The High Court shall not
and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no
coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is
completed and/or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section
173CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section
482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

The judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal
(supra) and Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) are squarely
applicable to the facts of this case and dissuade us from granting
any interim protection to the petitioner.

The relief sought for quashing of the F.I.R. under Sections 229,
                                                                                    CRLP No. 18818 of 2026
                                                               4


                                    337, 338, 340(2), 316(5), 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 66,
                                    66(D) of the I.T. Act is also accordingly declined for the same
                                    reasons.

                                    The writ petition is dismissed.

                                    Various arguments have been made to appraise the evidence.
                                    This Court is not noticing the aforesaid arguments since it is not
                                    the ken of the writ Court while examining a challenge to an
                                    F.I.R. to evaluate evidence on merits some of which has not
                                    even been collected so far.


                                                           (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.) (Ajay Bhanot,J.)
                                    September 21, 2026
                                    Ashish Tripathi




Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad