Allahabad High Court
SIDDHARTH SONKAR @ GULSHAN AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that a prima facie case exists and the FIR cannot be quashed; the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
Petitioners Siddharth Sonkar and three others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quash of an FIR dated 25‑03‑2026 registered under Section 351(3) of the BNS Act and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. They alleged that the FIR was fabricated because petitioner‑1 was in a love relationship with the informant’s daughter and that the case was engineered to thwart their marriage. The State, represented by the Advocate General, opposed the petition, contending that the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence and that the petitioners' defence cannot be examined at this stage. The Court examined the FIR, found that it discloses a prima facie case against the petitioners, and held that the court cannot interfere with the FIR at the pleading stage. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and any interim relief was vacated.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 25‑03‑2026 can be quashed on the ground of alleged malice and innocence of the petitioners.
- Whether the court may entertain a writ petition to quash an FIR when only a prima facie case is evident.
- Whether a prima facie case exists against the petitioners under the provisions of Section 351(3) BNS and Section 67 IT Act.
Legislation cited
- BNS Act — s. 351(3)
- Information Technology Act — s. 67
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- FIR quash
- prima facie case
- writ petition
- Section 351(3) BNS
- Section 67 IT Act
- malicious prosecution
- love affair motive
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21624 of 2026
Siddharth Sonkar @ Gulshan And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aman Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 46
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
1. Heard Mr. Aman Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for petitioners and
the learned A.G.A representing State/respondents 1, 2 & 3.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioners-Siddharth Sonkar @ Gulshan and 3 Others have approached
this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging
the first informant report dated 25.03.2026 lodged by first
informant/respondent-4, Mahendra Sonkar and registered as Case Crime
No. 50 of 2026, under Section 351(3) BNS and Section 67 IT Act, Police
Station-Kotwali City, District-Mirzapur.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners in challenge to the impugned F.I.R.
dated 25.03.2026 submits that the petitioners are innocent. They have not
committed the crime in question. Petitioners have been falsely implicated
in aforementioned case crime number. It is then contended by the learned
counsel for petitioners that petitioner-1 was in love relationship with the
daughter of first informant. Since petitioner-1 wanted to marry the
daughter of first informant, therefore, the impugned FIR has been
engineered to nip the aforesaid thought in the bud. On the above premise,
the learned counsel for petitioners would thus submits that the impugned
FIR is, therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents 1,2 and 3 has
vehemently opposed the present writ petition. Learned A.G.A. submits
that the submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioners, in
challenge to the impugned FIR, relate to the disputed defence of
petitioner, which cannot be examined at this stage. Furthermore, from
CRLP No. 21624 of 2026
2
perusal of impugned FIR, commission of a cognizable offence is clearly
disclosed. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present
writ petition.
6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioners could
not overcome the same.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A. for
State/respondents 1, 2 & 3 and upon perusal of record, we find that the
impugned FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.
Furthermore, from perusal of allegations made in the FIR, a prima-facie
case is made out against petitioners. Since at this stage, only a prima-facie
case is to be seen, we, therefore, decline to entertain present writ petition.
8. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.
September 16, 2026
Vinay
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…