Uttarakhand High Court
Ajay Kumar Gupta vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 16 February, 2026
2026:UHC:987
Judgement Pronounced on:16.02.2026
Judgement Reserved on: 10.11.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 570 OF 2024
Ajay Kumar Gupta ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another .....Respondents
with
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 562 OF 2024
Anil Kumar Gupta ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another .....Respondents
With
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1120 OF 2024
Anil Kumar Gupta ......Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
With
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 1121 OF 2024
Ajay Kumar Gupta ......Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the Petitioners in WPCRL Nos. 562 and
570 of 2024 and learned counsel for the Applicants in C-482 Nos. 1120 and
1121 of 2024.
Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Government Advocate, assisted by Mr. S. S. Chauhan,
learned Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rawal, learned
1
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 570 OF 2024------Ajay Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand and
Another with WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 562 OF 2024------Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1120 of 2024-----Anil Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1121 of 2024-----Ajay Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:987
Additional Government Advocate, and Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder,
for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. These four matters, though separately numbered and instituted under
different statutory provisions, arise out of the same First Information
Report dated 24.05.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 119 of 2024, at
Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun, and therefore have been heard
together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. WPCRL No. 562 of 2024 and WPCRL No. 570 of 2024 have been filed
invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR and
the consequential investigation. C-482 No. 1120 of 2024 and C-482
No. 1121 of 2024 have been instituted under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings
arising out of the same FIR and subsequent actions taken during
investigation.
3. The gravamen of the allegations in the FIR is that the acts and conduct
attributed to the Applicants allegedly drove the deceased to commit
suicide, thereby attracting the offence punishable under Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code. The State's case is primarily founded upon a
purported suicide note, which is stated to implicate the Applicants.
2
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 570 OF 2024------Ajay Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand and
Another with WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 562 OF 2024------Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1120 of 2024-----Anil Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1121 of 2024-----Ajay Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:987
4. During the course of investigation, and as reflected from the remand
proceedings dated 01.06.2024, additional penal provisions, namely
Sections 385, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, were also
incorporated. The Applicants were remanded to custody, and
investigation proceeded on the said basis.
5. Since the factual foundation, the FIR, the parties involved, and the legal
issues arising for consideration are common, these proceedings were
directed to be listed together and were heard analogously from time to
time.
6. A central issue that emerged during the pendency of these matters was
the authenticity and evidentiary value of the alleged suicide note. In
view thereof, this Court, by specific judicial orders, summoned the
Investigating Officer to clarify the status of forensic examination
pertaining to the handwriting of the deceased.
7. The Investigating Officer placed on record that the suicide note had
been sent for forensic examination; however, the Forensic Science
Laboratory was unable to arrive at a conclusive opinion regarding
authorship due to certain anomalies. It was further stated that efforts
were made to obtain cooperation from the son of the deceased for
comparative handwriting samples, but the same did not materialize.
8. Throughout the pendency of the proceedings, this Court monitored the
progress of investigation and repeatedly called for progress reports,
including DVR and CDR reports, while balancing the rights of the
3
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 570 OF 2024------Ajay Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand and
Another with WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 562 OF 2024------Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1120 of 2024-----Anil Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1121 of 2024-----Ajay Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:987
Applicants as well as the concerns raised on behalf of the complainant
regarding the pace and manner of investigation.
9. Learned State counsel ultimately made a statement before this Court
that the final report had been submitted in the matter. Thereafter,
arguments were heard at length in all the connected cases.
10. Since all four proceedings emanate from the same FIR, involve
identical factual allegations, overlapping legal issues, and common
questions of law, they are being decided by this common judgment.
11. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in WPCRL Nos. 562 and 570
of 2024 and learned counsel for the Applicants in C-482 Nos. 1120 and
1121 of 2024 submitted that the very registration of the FIR dated
24.05.2024 is an abuse of the process of law, as the basic ingredients of
the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are
not made out even if the allegations contained therein are taken at their
face value.
12. It was contended that the FIR is founded primarily upon a
purported suicide note, which forms the fulcrum of the prosecution
case, yet the said document itself is surrounded by serious doubt.
Learned counsel submitted that the forensic examination of the suicide
note has failed to establish that it was authored by the deceased, and the
Forensic Science Laboratory has not returned any conclusive opinion
regarding handwriting attribution.
4
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 570 OF 2024------Ajay Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand and
Another with WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 562 OF 2024------Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1120 of 2024-----Anil Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1121 of 2024-----Ajay Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:987
13. Learned counsel further argued that in the absence of a clear and
reliable forensic opinion connecting the suicide note with the deceased,
the entire prosecution case loses its foundation, as there is no
independent material demonstrating any act of instigation, aid, or
intentional conduct on the part of the Applicants so as to attract the
offence of abetment to suicide.
14. It was further urged that mere allegations of harassment,
monetary disputes, or interpersonal discord, even if assumed to be true,
do not ipso facto constitute abetment within the meaning of Section 107
IPC. Learned counsel submitted that the FIR and the materials collected
during investigation do not disclose any proximate, direct, or active
role played by the Applicants that could be said to have driven the
deceased to take the extreme step.
15. Learned counsel for the Applicants also assailed the subsequent
addition of offences under Sections 385, 420, and 120-B IPC,
contending that the said provisions were mechanically incorporated
during remand without any foundational material. It was argued that the
essential ingredients of extortion, cheating, or criminal conspiracy are
conspicuously absent from the record.
16. It was further submitted that the continuation of criminal
proceedings, despite the investigation having culminated in a final
report and despite the absence of legally sustainable material, would
5
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 570 OF 2024------Ajay Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand and
Another with WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 562 OF 2024------Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1120 of 2024-----Anil Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1121 of 2024-----Ajay Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:987
amount to unwarranted harassment of the Applicants and a misuse of
the criminal justice machinery.
17. Per contra, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the
State, submitted that the FIR discloses serious allegations which require
thorough judicial scrutiny at the appropriate stage. Learned State
counsel contended that the scope of interference, whether under Article
226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 CrPC, is limited and that
this Court should be slow in stifling a prosecution at its threshold.
18. Learned State counsel argued that the suicide note, coupled with
other surrounding circumstances, including the statements recorded
during investigation, prima facie indicate the involvement of the
Applicants. It was submitted that the inability of the Forensic Science
Laboratory to return a conclusive opinion does not render the suicide
note non-existent or wholly irrelevant, and that its evidentiary value is a
matter to be appreciated during trial.
19. Learned State counsel further submitted that the investigation
was conducted in accordance with law, that all relevant electronic and
documentary evidence, including DVR and CDR records, were
collected, and that the final report has now been submitted before the
competent court. It was urged that disputed questions of fact cannot be
adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC.
20. Learned counsel appearing for the private Respondent supported
the submissions advanced on behalf of the State and contended that the
6
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 570 OF 2024------Ajay Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand and
Another with WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 562 OF 2024------Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1120 of 2024-----Anil Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1121 of 2024-----Ajay Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:987
deceased was subjected to sustained mental pressure and coercive
circumstances, which ultimately resulted in the commission of suicide.
It was argued that the allegations disclose a continuing course of
conduct, and therefore the offence of abetment cannot be ruled out at
this stage.
21. Learned counsel for the private Respondent further submitted that
the Applicants have sought to prematurely terminate the criminal
proceedings by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court,
and that the truthfulness or otherwise of the suicide note and other
evidence must be tested only during trial.
22. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the Applicants reiterated that the
criminal law cannot be permitted to operate on conjectures and
surmises, particularly in a case resting almost entirely upon a document
whose authorship itself remains unestablished. It was urged that
allowing the prosecution to continue in such circumstances would
defeat the very object of inherent and constitutional safeguards against
abuse of process.
23. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
24. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate the well-settled legal
position that the power of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is extraordinary and is to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection, and only to prevent abuse of the process of law or to
secure the ends of justice. At the same time, it is equally settled that
7
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 570 OF 2024------Ajay Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand and
Another with WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 562 OF 2024------Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1120 of 2024-----Anil Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1121 of 2024-----Ajay Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:987
where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected during
investigation do not disclose the commission of any cognizable
offence, this Court would be failing in its duty if it permits the criminal
process to continue merely for the sake of form.
25. The offence alleged against the Applicants is primarily under
Section 306 IPC. In order to constitute the offence of abetment to
suicide, the prosecution must prima facie establish the existence of
abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC, namely instigation,
conspiracy, or intentional aid. The element of mens rea and a live,
proximate link between the conduct of the accused and the act of
suicide are indispensable requirements.
26. In the present case, the foundation of the prosecution case rests
almost entirely upon a purported suicide note, which is alleged to have
been authored by the deceased and to contain imputations against the
Applicants. It is not in dispute that this suicide note was sent for
forensic examination with respect to handwriting attribution.
27. The record reflects that the Forensic Science Laboratory was
unable to return a conclusive opinion regarding the authorship of the
suicide note due to certain anomalies. This Court had, on more than one
occasion, called upon the Investigating Officer to clarify the status of
the forensic examination, and it was candidly stated before this Court
that no definitive forensic linkage between the handwriting on the
suicide note and that of the deceased could be established.
8
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 570 OF 2024------Ajay Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand and
Another with WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 562 OF 2024------Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1120 of 2024-----Anil Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1121 of 2024-----Ajay Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:987
28. In a prosecution for abetment to suicide, where the suicide note is
projected as the principal incriminating circumstance, the authenticity
and authorship of such a document assumes critical significance. While
it is true that the absence of a forensic opinion may not, in all cases, be
fatal, the weight to be attached to such a document at the threshold
stage cannot be ignored, particularly when no other cogent material is
shown to independently establish instigation or intentional aid.
29. Apart from the suicide note, the FIR and the material collected
during investigation do not disclose any specific act, overt or covert, on
the part of the Applicants which could be said to have directly or
indirectly driven the deceased to commit suicide. The allegations, at
their highest, indicate disputes of a personal or financial nature, but fall
short of demonstrating the degree of culpable conduct required to
attract Section 306 IPC.
30. It is a settled principle that mere allegations of harassment,
discord, or strained relations, without something more, cannot
constitute abetment to suicide. The law requires a proximate cause, a
clear mens rea, and a demonstrable nexus between the accused's
conduct and the suicide. The material on record, even if taken at face
value, does not prima facie satisfy these requirements.
31. The subsequent addition of offences under Sections 385, 420, and
120-B IPC also merits careful scrutiny. The record does not reveal any
foundational material showing the essential ingredients of extortion or
cheating, such as dishonest inducement, delivery of property pursuant
thereto, or wrongful loss and corresponding wrongful gain. Similarly,
9
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 570 OF 2024------Ajay Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand and
Another with WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 562 OF 2024------Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1120 of 2024-----Anil Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1121 of 2024-----Ajay Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:987
the element of criminal conspiracy has been invoked without any
tangible material indicating a meeting of minds.
32. This Court is conscious of the submission advanced on behalf of
the State that disputed questions of fact ought not to be examined at this
stage. However, the present case does not call for a detailed
appreciation of evidence, but rather for an examination as to whether
the allegations and the material collected disclose the commission of
the offences alleged. Where the basic ingredients of the offences are
conspicuously absent, permitting the prosecution to proceed would
itself amount to an abuse of process.
33. Much emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the State and the
private Respondent on the proposition that the evidentiary value of the
suicide note and other material is a matter for trial. While that
proposition is unexceptionable, it presupposes the existence of prima
facie material capable of sustaining the charge. In the absence of a
conclusive forensic opinion and in the absence of any other
independent incriminating material, the continuation of criminal
proceedings would rest on speculation rather than on legally sustainable
grounds.
34. This Court also cannot be unmindful of the fact that the
investigation has culminated in submission of the final report. The
prolonged pendency of the proceedings, coupled with the absence of
foundational material, reinforces the conclusion that allowing the
criminal process to continue would result in undue prejudice to the
Applicants without serving the ends of justice.
10
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 570 OF 2024------Ajay Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand and
Another with WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 562 OF 2024------Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1120 of 2024-----Anil Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1121 of 2024-----Ajay Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:987
35. The inherent and constitutional powers of this Court exist
precisely to ensure that criminal law is not set in motion or allowed to
continue on the basis of conjectures, surmises, or legally insufficient
material. The present case squarely falls within that protective ambit.
36. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the allegations contained in the FIR, the
material collected during investigation, and the circumstances placed
on record do not disclose the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 306, 385, 420, or 120-B IPC, even prima facie. Continuation
of the criminal proceedings would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the
process of law.
ORDER
In view of the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the
considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings
arising out of First Information Report dated 24.05.2024, registered as
Case Crime No. 119 of 2024, Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun,
would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Consequently, WPCRL No. 562 of 2024 and WPCRL No. 570 of
2024 are allowed. The First Information Report dated 24.05.2024,
registered as Case Crime No. 119 of 2024, Police Station Rajpur,
District Dehradun, and all proceedings consequent thereto, are hereby
quashed.
11
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 570 OF 2024——Ajay Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand and
Another with WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 562 OF 2024——Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1120 of 2024—–Anil Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1121 of 2024—–Ajay Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:987
C-482 No. 1120 of 2024 and C-482 No. 1121 of 2024 are also
allowed. All criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR,
including the proceedings pending before the competent court pursuant
to the remand orders and the final report submitted in the matter, are
hereby quashed.
All interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
The connected proceedings, if any, shall also stand closed.
Ashish Naithani, J.
Dated:16.02.2026
NR/
12
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 570 OF 2024——Ajay Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand and
Another with WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 562 OF 2024——Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1120 of 2024—–Anil Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1121 of 2024—–Ajay Kumar Gupta vs
State of Uttarakhand and Another
Ashish Naithani J.