Uttarakhand High Court
Shohib Akhtar vs State Of Uttarakhand on 24 February, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Crl) No. 220 of 2026
Shohib Akhtar. ..................... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and others. ...............Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Anas Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. with Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal, Mrs. Meenakshi
Sharma and Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. By the instant petition the petitioner Shohib Akhtar S/o Shri
Musa Khan r/o Shastri Nagar, Dehradun, is praying for quashing
of First Information Report dated 11.04.2025 bearing FIR No. 0073
of 2025 P.S. Basant Vihar, District Dehradun, wherein, he has been
implicated for the offences punishable under sections 115(2),
191(2) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner
is innocent and has been falsely implicated and all the offences in
which the petitioner has been implicated are punishable for less
than seven years and therefore the Investigating Agency has to
follow the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Arnesh Kumar 2014 (8) SCC 273.
3. Apart from this, he submits that the police authorities are
repeatedly harassing the petitioner by visiting the house of the
petitioner and his family members on one pretext or another and
has a reasonable apprehension that he may be illegally arrested in
connection with the impugned FIR. He submits that after lodging
of the FIR on 11.04.2025 the petitioner filed an application before
the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Dehradun, on 29.08.2025 seeking
clarification as to exact under which section the FIR has been
2
registered since he was not aware about the registration of the
impugned FIR, which infact was lodged at the instance of one Mr.
Rajat Sharma.
4. In paragraph 9 it is contended that the petitioner came to
know about registration of the FIR by one Mr. Rajat Sharma on
11.04.2025, wherein, he has been implicated for the offence
punishable under section 115(2), 191(2) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023,
and all these offences are bailable and punishable for less than
seven years. He submits that the impugned FIR has been
registered in mechanical manner without application of mind and
does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and
even if the allegations in the FIR taken at their face value and
accepted entirely the essential ingredients of the penal provisions
are not made out, therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be
quashed.
5. In paragraph 13 it is stated that the conduct of the police
officials in visiting his house unnecessarily is nothing but causing
mental harassment to the petitioner and furthermore without
issuing any notice under section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 and the
action of the police officials are highly objectionable. He submits
that the impugned FIR has been lodged with malafide intent and
ulterior purposes and motive. Finally he concluded his argument
by submitting that no prima-facie offence is made out against the
petitioner and as such the FIR be quashed.
6. When this petition came up before the Vacation Judge on
29.01.2026 the Vacation Judge granted interim protection to the
petitioner that no coercive steps shall be taken against the
petitioner.
7. Yesterday, the matter came up before this court and Mr.
Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A. on instructions apprise to this
3
court that the petitioner is indulged in criminal activities since
2018 and as many as there are ten cases against him and most of
the crime he has committed in the geographical area of P.S. Basant
Vihar and P.S. Cantt of Dehradun city. Mr. Sandeep Sharma,
learned A.G.A. also apprise to this court that despite the notice
issued under section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 as well as notice under
section 179 of BNSS, 2023 neither the petitioner nor their parents
turn up to cooperate with the investigation. Learned A.G.A. also
pointed out that not only this even in this petition the petitioner
deliberately suppressed about his criminal history and also
pointed out that the impugned FIR is also lodged in the same
police station i.e. P.S. Basant Vihar where he has repeatedly
indulged in criminal activities.
8. After gone through with the entire petition admittedly there
is no disclosure about past history. The matter is posted for today
and the SHO of both the police stations i.e. P.S. Basant Vihar and
P.S Cantt were asked to join the proceeding through V.C. and Mr.
Ashok Rathore, who is the SHO of Police Station Basant Vihar
informs about ten criminal cases and most of the cases are in P.S.
Basant Vihar. The concerned I.O. Mr. Vinay Bhatt also apprise to
this court that three notices were personally served to the mother
of the petitioner under section 179 i.e. on 15.08.2025, 23.08.2025
and 12.12.2025 and no one turned up to join the investigation then
on 19.12.2025 the notice was affixed in the house of the petitioner.
The I.O. also pointed out that not a single day the petitioner make
an attempt to join the investigation.
9. Learned A.G.A. Mr. Sandeep Sharma submits that
apparently the petitioner is misusing the interim protection
granted by the vacation court on 29.01.2026.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner denied this fact that any
such notice under section 35(3) and section 179 of BNSS, 2023
4
were served either to the petitioner or to his parents. In support of
his argument he has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Wajid vs. State of U.P.
and Others 2023 (20) SCC 219 and particularly he has placed
reliance to paragraph 9.2, 43 and 44, which are being reproduced
herein as under:
“9.2. Accused Iqbal has absconded from the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court and has in all likelihood absconded from the
country. It is humbly submitted that a person who is not within
the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and has not signed any
affidavit or vakalatnama, cannot be entitled for any relief.
43. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the State vehemently submitted that considering the gross
criminal antecedents of the appellants before us, the criminal
proceedings may not be quashed. The learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the State in her written
submissions has furnished details in regard to the antecedents of
the appellants. A bare look at the chart may give an impression
that the appellants are history sheeters and hardened criminals.
However, when it comes to quashing of the FIR or criminal
proceedings, the criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be
the sole consideration to decline to quash the criminal
proceedings. An accused has a legitimate right to say before the
Court that howsoever bad his antecedents may be, still if the FIR
fails to disclose commission of any offence or his case falls
within one of the parameters as laid down by this Court in the
case of Bhajan Lal (supra), then the Court should not decline to
quash the criminal case only on the ground that the accused is a
history sheeter. Initiation of prosecution has adverse and harsh
consequences for the persons named as accused.
44. In Directorate of Revenue and another v. Mohammed
Nisar Holia, (2008) 2 SCC 370, this Court explicitly recognises
the right to not to be disturbed without sufficient grounds as
one of the underlying mandates of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Thus, the requirement and need to balance the law enforcement
power and protection of citizens from injustice and harassment
must be maintained. It goes without saying that the State owes a
duty to ensure that no crime goes unpunished but at the same
time it also owes a duty to ensure that none of its subjects are
unnecessarily harassed.”
11. By referring the aforesaid judgment learned counsel argued
that in the aforesaid case there were 45 criminal cases against the
accused person including rape cases, illegal mining, fraud cases,
5
assault cases and other criminal cases and he was indulged in
criminal activities since 1990. He submits that merely on the
ground that the petitioner was having criminal history of ten cases
the police officials have no authority to bypass the guidelines
formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh
Kumar.
12. The another judgment, which he has placed reliance is in the
case of Munnesh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 SCC Online SC
1319 and by referring paragraph 12 learned counsel submits that
the requirement of disclosure of previous criminal cases is only
mandatory in the bail application and no in a writ petition,
wherein, the FIR is questioned.
13. He also submits that the impugned FIR is liable to be
quashed since from the contents of the FIR no offence is made out
and furthermore falls under the category of seven cases as
categorized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Supp) Vol 1 Page 335. The
seven category of cases as categorized by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lala (supra) are as
follows:
(a) 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;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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;
(c) 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;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
6no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code;
(e) 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;
(f) 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;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or 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. In the instant case, the allegations made in the
complaint, do clearly constitute a cognizable offence on and this
case does not call for the exercise of extraordinary or inherent
powers of the High Court to quash the F.I.R. itself.
Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded his argument
by placing reliance of the aforesaid judgment and submits that
this is a fit case in which the FIR has to be quashed.
14. On the other side, Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned A.G.A.
argued that from the contents of the impugned FIR apparently
prima-facie cognizable offences are made out and the law is very
well settled if from the contents of the FIR the cognizable offence
is made out there is no any question for quashing of the FIR.
15. Mr. Sharma further submits that since from the contents of
the FIR prima-facie the offences are made out and there are
injured persons who got injuries also in most vital part of the
body i.e. the head and as such the instant petition is liable to be
dismissed. He also submits that since the petitioner herein has
suppressed about his criminal history and on this account also the
petition is liable to be dismissed with the exemplary cost. In
reference to the judgment as relied upon by the learned counsel
7
for the petitioner in the case of Mohd. Wajid (supra), he submits
that the argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is thoroughly misconceived since that facts the said case
are different.
16. Mr. Sharma submits that though in paragraph 2 of the
petition the petitioner pleaded that he is a law abiding citizen but
as a matter of fact the petitioner is indulged in criminal activity
since 2018 in the geographical area of two police stations i.e.
Basant Vihar and Cantt. Of Dehradun city, therefore, the
averment as made in paragraph 2 of the petition that he is law
abiding citizen is misleading on.
17. At this juncture, since the concerned I.O. apprise to this
court that despite several notices neither the petitioner nor his
parents joined investigation, which is denied by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and furthermore the injury report of the
injured are also not on record, the matter is posted on 26.02.2026
in order to enable the State to produce notices as well as the injury
report of the injured persons.
18. Put up this matter on 26.02.2026.
19. Till then interim order shall continue.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
24.02.2026
PR