Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Kazeem Ahmad Sherwani vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 16 February, 2026
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath
ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.2 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 391/2021
KAZEEM AHMAD SHERWANI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
[PART HEARD BY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH AND HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA]......................FOR FOR EXEMPTION FROM
FILING AFFIDAVIT ON IA 118377/2021
IA No. 118377/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
Date : 16-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Shahrukh Alam, Adv.
Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR
Ms. Warisha Farasat, Adv.
Ms. Suvarna, Adv.
Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv.
Mr. Faizan Ahmed, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Km Nataraj, A.S.G.
Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR
Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv.
Mr. Sharanya, Adv.
Ms. Ritika Rao, Adv.
Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR
Ms. Bipasa Tripathy, Adv.
Mr. Shlok Luthra, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Today, during the course of the hearing, Shri
K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2026.02.17
makes a statement that from the allegations as set
13:09:42 IST
Reason:
out in the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the
1
necessary ingredients of the offences punishable
under Sections 153B and 295A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) were made out and the
FIR ought to have been registered for the said
offences. However, by now, chargesheet has been filed
without invoking these offences, and hence, the
Investigating Officer would be better advised to move
an application to the trial Court for return of the
original file so that further investigation can be
made by invoking these offences and seeking the
mandatory sanction from the Government under Section
196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(corresponding Section 217 of the BNSS).
2. Shri Nataraj assures that upon procuring the
case file, the Investigating Officer shall make
further investigation and thereafter move an
application to the competent Government for grant of
sanction to prosecute the accused for the aforesaid
offences and a fresh report under Section 173(2) CrPC
(corresponding Section 193(3) of the BNSS) will be
filed before the competent Court within next six
weeks.
3. Manifestly, the Investigating Officer
committed grave error in not applying the appropriate
offences which were made out on a bare perusal of the
FIR lodged by the petitioner. However, now under
2
proper legal advice, the investigation agency
proposes to rectify the error by moving an
appropriate application to the trial Court for return
of the original record so that further investigation
can be conducted with addition of the applicable
offences and sanction mandatorily required under
Section 196 CrPC (corresponding Section 217 of the
BNSS) can be sought.
4. In this view of the matter, we hereby defer
the matter by eight weeks so as to give time to the
respondent Investigation Agency to take appropriate
measures for rectifying the errors highlighted in
this petition.
5. List on 21st April, 2026.
(SONIA BHASIN) (RANJANA SHAILEY)
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
3
