IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI RAKESH THAPLIYAL.

Judgment Reserved on: 08.04.2026

Judgment Delivered on: 03.06.2026

Criminal Writ Petition No. 96 of 2026.

Suresh Rathore ……Petitioner

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ……Respondents.

With

Criminal Writ Petition No. 1801 of 2025.

Suresh Rathore ……Petitioner

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ……Respondents.

With

Criminal Writ Petition No. 39 of 2026.

Suresh Rathore ……Petitioner

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ……Respondents.

With

Criminal Writ Petition No. 13 of 2026.

Suresh Rathore ……Petitioner

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ……Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan and Mr.

S.K. Shandilya, learned counsel.

Counsel for the State : Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned A.G.A.

Counsel for the complainant: Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel

and Mr. Vineet Singh, learned counsel.

(Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

1. The present batch of matters consisting of four petitions

concerns four FIRs filed under the provisions of Bhartiya Nyay

Sanhita 2023 (for short BNS 2023) as well as Information

Technology (Amendment) Act 2008. The detail of each of the FIRs

which are subject matter of these batch of petitions are tabulated

below for the sake of convenience.

Sl. No. FIR No. Date of registration Police Station Provisions

1 0420/2025 24.12.2025 Nehru Colony

Dehradun.

Sections 308(7), 351(2), 352, 79

of BNS 2023 read with

Section 67 of I.T.

2

(Amendment) Act 2008.

2. 0534/2025 24/12/2025 Bahadrabad,

Haridwar

Sections 248(b), 336(4) and

3(5) of BNS 2023

3. 0356/2025 26/12/2025 Jhabrera,

Haridwar

Sections 248(b), 336(4) and

3(5) of BNS 2023

4. 0004/2026 05/01/2026 Dalanwala,

Dehradun

Sections 336(4), 353(2), 356(3),

61(2) of BNS 2023 read with

Section 66D and 66E of I.T.

(Amendment) Act 2008.

As per the tabular chart, as above, FIR No. 356/2025 and

FIR No. 534/2025 are the subject matter of WPCRL No. 39 of 2026

and WPCRL No. 13 of 2026. The other two FIRs, i.e., FIR No.

0420/2025 and FIR No. 004/2026 are the subject matter of

WPCRL No. 801 of 2025 and WPCRL No. 96 of 2026.

2. In all these FIRs the petitioner Suresh Rathore and other

one Urmila Sanavar are implicated for different penal provisions

under the BNS 2023 and under the Information Technology

(Amendment) Act 2008. So far as FIR No. 0004 of 2026 lodged at

Dehradun is concerned, the informant of this FIR is Mr. Dushyant

Kumar Gautam in which the present petitioner and one Urmila

Sanavar along with some unknown persons of different political

parties have also been implicated.

3. At this juncture, it is essential to outline the factual matrix

as described in each of the FIRs to clearly understand the context

of these batch of petitions.

(I) As per the tabular chart first FIR is lodged by one Arti

Gaur on 24.12.2025, i.e., FIR No. 0420 of 2025 at P.S. Nehru

Colony, District Dehradun wherein the petitioner and one Urmila

Sanavar have been implicated for the offences punishable under

Sections 308(7), 351(2), 352 and 79 of BNS 2023 read with Section

67 of I.T. (Amendment) Act 2008 which is the subject matter of

WPCRL No. 1801 of 2025. It is alleged in this FIR that informant is

resident of Dehradun and Member of District Panchayat, Amroli

of Yamkeshwar Constituency and three years back one girl,

3

namely, Ankita Bhandari was missing and murdered and a case

was registered and after investigation three persons were charge

sheeted and the Trial Court convicted each of them with the

sentence of life imprisonment and now after three years of the

said incident Ms. Urmila Sanavar who belongs to District

Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh uploaded certain video clips

containing personal conversation with Suresth Rathore on

different social media platforms including facebook account

containing extremely abusive and vulgar language in order to get

political mileage and the informant is being harassed by them

and also being threaten to falsely implicate in Ankita Bhandari’s

murder case.

(II) The next FIR is FIR No. 0534 of 2025 lodged by one

Dr. Dharmendra Kumar at P.S. Bahadrabad, District Haridwar

implicating the petitioner Suresh Rathore and Ms. Urmila

Sanavar for the offences punishable under Sections 248(b), 336(4)

and 3(5) of BNS 2023. In this FIR, it is alleged that Mr. Suresh

Rathore and his wife Urmila Sanavar are making false and

misleading statement by uploading their audio clips on different

social media platforms against one Mr. Dushyant Kumar

Gautam, President of “International Shiromani Guru Ravidas

Shiv Mahapeeth” and “National President of Sant Shiromani

Guru Ravidas Akhara Bharat” with an intention to malign his

social image and reputation, causing deep hurt to the followers of

“Ravidas Community”.

(III) Next FIR is FIR No. 0356 of 2025 lodged by one

Sanchit Kumar on 26.12.2026 at P.S. Jhabrera District Haridwar

which is the subject matter of WPCRL No. 39 of 2026 wherein

Suresh Rathore and Ms. Urmila Sanavar have been implicated for

the offences punishable under Sections 248(b), 336(4) read with

Section 3(5) of BNS 2023. In this FIR it is alleged that both Mr.

Suresh Rathore and Ms. Urmila Sanavar are making false and

4

misleading statement on social media platform against one Mr.

Dushyant Kumar Gautam, “National President of Sant Shiromani

Guru Ravidas Akhara Bharat” with an intention to malign his

social image and reputation in order to get political mileage

which also hurt the sentiments of the followers of “Ravidas

Community”.

(IV) The last one is the FIR No. 0004 of 2026 lodged by Mr.

Dushyant Kumar Gautam on 05.01.2026 at P.S. Dalanwala in

District Dehradun wherein Suresh Rathore, the present petitioner

and Ms. Urmila Sanavar with some unknown persons of different

political parties have been implicated for the offences punishable

under Sections 336(4), 353(2), 356(3) 61(2) of BNS 2023 read with

Section 66D and 66E of the I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008. In this

FIR, it is alleged that Suresh Rathore, Ex. M.L.A. from Jwalapur

Constituency and actress Urmila Sanavar in association with

some persons belongs to the different political parties are

uploading fake audio and video clips of their conversation on

different social media platforms by using extremely vulgar and

abusive language with an intention to malign reputation of the

informant in order to get political mileage which is a well

planned conspiracy to implicate the informant in Ankita

Bhandari’s murder case.

4. Plain reading of all these FIRs indicates that the allegations

as alleged in two FIRs, i.e. FIR No. 0356/2025 and FIR No.

0534/2025 are almost contains the same allegation as alleged in

the FIR No. 0004/2026 lodged by Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam.

Furthermore, on close scrutiny of these two FIRs, admittedly, the

victim is Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam who is informant of FIR

No. 0004 of 2026. So far as FIR No. 0420 of 2025 is concerned, in

this FIR Ms. Arti Gaur is the informant as well as the victim and

5

the allegations as alleged, to some extent, are different to the

other three FIRs.

5. The petitioner Suresh Rathore who is admittedly having a

political background and was Ex. M.L.A. is aggrieved by these

four FIRs lodged by different persons in different police stations

and praying for quashing of FIRs on the ground that each of the

impugned FIRs does not disclose any cognizable offence and as a

matter of fact, he is the victim and he has not uploaded any

conversation with Ms. Urmila Sanavar in any social media

platform, and, as such, the impugned FIRs qua the petitioner are

deserves to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. V.S. Chauhan and

Mr. S.K. Shandiyla argued that the petitioner is innocent and has

been falsely implicated and he has no concern with the other co-

accused, namely, Ms. Urmila Sanavar @ Urmila Rathore, since,

she is not legally wedded wife of the petitioner, and, in fact, the

petitioner is the victim since co-accused Urmila Sanavar hurled

slurry remarks against the petitioner as well as his family

members on different social media platforms.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the

petitioner has no enmity with Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam who

is the informant of FIR No. 0004 of 2026 and he has not uttered a

single word on social media in order to malign his image or to get

any political mileage.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that so far

as FIR No. 356/2025 and FIR No. 0534/2025 are concerned, the

informant of both the FIRs have no locus to lodge these FIRs since

neither they are the victim nor the affected person as envisaged

6

under Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. (corresponding section 2(Y) of

BNSS 2023), hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

In furtherance of their arguments learned counsel for the

petitioner also submits that in fact the allegations, as alleged, in

these two FIR are almost identical to the allegations as alleged in

FIR No. 0004/2026 which was lodged by the informant/victim

and since the victim already lodged the FIR, therefore, these two

FIRs containing almost with same set of allegations by the

persons who are neither the affected party nor the victim cannot

sustain in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court

in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2001) 6

SCC 181. In support of such submission, he submits that these

two FIRs, i.e. FIR No. 356/2025 and FIR No. 0534/2025 lodged on

24.12.2025 and 26.12.2025 respectively, though, lodged prior to

the FIR lodged by Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam who lodged the

FIR on 05.01.2026 bearing FIR No. 0004 of 2026 but these two FIRs

since contains same allegation, as alleged in FIR No. 0004/2026

which in fact was lodged by the victim himself should be treated

as a successive FIR in respect of same allegations and are liable to

be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of T.T. Antony (supra) which still holds a good

law.

8. In furtherance of his arguments with regard to these two

FIRs lodged at District Haridwar by two different persons who

are neither the affected party nor the victim, learned counsel for

the petitioner further placed reliance to another judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Bihar i Lal vs. State

of U.P. decided on 17.10.2025 in Writ Petition (criminal) No. 1234

of 2023, INSC 1249 and he draw attention of this Court to para 98

of this judgment wherein the earlier precedent i.e. in the case of

T.T. Antony (supra) was also considered. By placing reliance to

7

this judgment learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

these two FIR, i.e. FIR No. 356/2025 and FIR No. 0534/2025

cannot sustain and are deserve to be quashed on two grounds;

firstly the informant of these two FIRs are neither the victim nor

the affected party; secondly the allegations, as alleged, in both the

FIRs almost the same as alleged in the FIR No. 0004 of 2026

lodged by Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam who is actually the

victim and affected party.

9. In reference to this, the counsel for the respondent/

complainant argued that the statement as advanced by the

learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived, since, the

allegations, as alleged, in the two FIRs cannot be treated to be

same as alleged in FIR No. 0004/2026 because due to the conduct

of the petitioner and co-accused Mrs. Urmila Sanavar followers of

“Ravidas Community” are deeply hurt. Mr. Navneet Kaushik

submits that various audio clips were uploaded on different

social media platform by Urmila Sanavar @ Urmila Rathore in

which extremely vulgar and abusive language was used against

Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam who is National President of “Sant

Shiromani Guru Ravidas Akhara Bharat”, and such

converasation make an impression in the mind of the followers of

“Ravidas Community” that Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam is a

person who have a nexus with Ankita Bhandari’s murder case.

Mr. Kaushik further submits that audio clip between Suresh

Rathore and Urmila Sanavar were of such nature that created

false narrative in the hands of other political parties and persons

to create a havoc in the social media which is nothing but a well

planned organized conspiracy of Suresh Rathore and Urmila

Sanavar to implicate Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam in a case

wherein after long trial, the accused persons have been convicted

and their appeal against conviction is pending in the High Court.

8

He submits that these two FIRs cannot be treated to be a multiple

FIR or successive FIR since contents of both the FIRs contains

different allegations, and, the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court

in the case of T.T. Antony (supra) will not apply in respect of

these two FIRs.

10. So far as other two FIRs, i.e. FIR No. 0420 of 2025 lodged by

Ms. Arti Gaur and another one i.e. FIR No. 0 004 of 2026 lodged

by Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam are concerned, learned counsel

for the petitioner argued that all the allegations as alleged in these

two FIRs are false and frivolous and the petitioner is innocent

and has been falsely implicated and even otherwise the petitioner

is, in fact, is the victim since other co-accused also raised serious

remarks against the petitioner as well. He further submits that the

petitioner has no enmity with Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam, and

in fact, the petitioner was the former M.L.A. from the same

political party of which Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam belongs,

therefore, there is no question for making any such remark

against Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam to malign his image. He

further submits that no date and time is mentioned in these two

FIRs as to when the petitioner made any such statement in social

media in order to malign the image of Mr. Dushyant Kumar

Gautam, and, as such no offence is made out. He submits that at

no point of time the petitioner make any such statement in social

media against Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam even he has not

uploaded any conversation with Urmila Sanavar in social media

platform including any video clip, and, as such, these two FIRs

also does not discloses any cognizable offence against the

petitioner. He also submits that even the petitioner has no

collusion with the co-accused Urmila Sanavar and specific

averment has been made in WPCRL No. 13 of 2026 in this regard,

9

and, as such, the impugned FIR qua the petitioner is liable to be

quashed.

In addition to this, learned counsel for the petitioner placed

reliance to the judgment of Delhi High Court in the petition

bearing CS (OS) No. 16 of 2026, Dushyant Kumar Gautam vs.

Urmila Sanavar and Ors., filed by Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam ,

informant of FIR No. 004 of 2026, and he draw attention to some

relevant extract of the said judgment of Delhi High Court

11. By referring the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that even the aforesaid judgment of Delhi

High Court nowhere connects the petitioner with the allegation

as alleged in the impugned FIRs.

12. In WPCRL No. 1801 of 2025, counter affidavit has been filed

by the I.O. enclosing the statement of co-accused Urmila Sanavar

and other witnesses along with recovery memo of audio-clip and

transcript of conversation between Urmila Sanavar with the

petitioner. Mr. Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that all

the FIRs are under investigation and cooperation of petitioner is

required since the I.O. conducting investigation from every angle.

He submits that I.O. collected audio clip containing the

conversation of petitioner with co-accused “Urmila Sanavar”

from which it reveals that the petitioner and the other co-accused

using abusive and filthy language and certain audio clips also

contains the conversation with regard to “Ankita Bhandari’s”

murder case. Transcription of audio are also placed on record

with counter affidavit.

Learned A.G.A. also submits that the original voice sample

of petitioner as well as of co-accused “Urmila Sanavar” has been

sent for forensic analysis to CFL (Centre Forensic Lab)

Chandigarh alongwith their mobile phones after obtaining the

permission from the court and the report are still awaited. He also

10

pointed out that in FIR No. 365 of 2025 Section 308 is now deleted

and investigation is in progress relating to other penal provisions,

i.e. 350(1), 352, 79 of BNS 2023 read with Section 67 IT Act. Mr.

Joshi, learned A.G.A. also submits that investigation reveals that

Urmila Sanavar is an Actress from film industry Mumbai and

earlier she married with one Ajay Sharma and from this marriage

there are two sons who are at present 24 and 28 years old,

however due to their matrimonial dispute she came in contact

with the petitioner Suresh Rathore and both of them solemnized “

xa/koZ fookg” in Nepal.

13. In WPCRL No. 96 of 2026 wherein FIR No. 04 of 2026 is

under challenge wherein complainant also filed counter affidavit

with this contention that interim protection has been granted at a

very crucial stage of investigation when the investigating agency

has yet not been able to collect the material evidence, digital

devices and digital accounts to complete the chain of circulation

of the objectionable content which is necessary for fair

investigation. In counter reference of Hon’ble Apex Court’s

decision in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

State of Maharashtra (2021 SCC Online SC 315) has also been

given wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down certain

guidelines by holding that the police have a statutory right and

duty to investigate a cognizable offence and the Court should not

interfere with the investigation particularly relating to a

cognizable offence except in rare of rarest cases.

Learned counsel for the complainant Dushyant Kumar

Gautam submits that the complainant is a senior, well known

political figure associated with National Political party as a

National General Secretary including State In-charge (Prabhari)

for the State of Uttarakhand and was Member of Parliament in

Rajya Sabha and by virtue of his long and distinguished public

11

service, he has earned considerable goodwill, credibility and

respect among the public at large.

He further submits that petitioner is in collusion with co-

accused “Urmila Sanavar” repeatedly uploading objectionable

remarks against complainant through different social media

platform like facebook, youtube and instagram only to get

political mileage in connivance with other political parties and it

requires collection of electronic evidence, examination of digital

account and identification of the persons involved, and the FIR

cannot be quashed since it discloses cognizable offence.

He also make submission in reference to the incident of

“Ankita Bhandari’s” murder case and submits that Ankita

Bhandari was the receptionist in a resort and had gone missing in

September 2022 and then found dead on 18.09.2022 which led to

registration of FIR relating to her abduction and murder.

Subsequently on investigation the persons involved were charge

sheeted and subsequent thereto trial court convicted them with

the life imprisonment against which now convicts preferred

appeal in the High Court.

He further submits that the petitioner in association with

Urmila Saravar are repeatedly making an attempt to sensitize the

“Ankita Bhandari’s” murder case in a public domain and

uploaded their conversation and the videos in different social

media platforms and portrayed the complainant as a sexual

predator and insinuated that he was the person for whose alleged

benefit Ankita Bhandari was being exploited and ultimately

killed and circulation of such baseless and defamatory videos and

posts by the petitioner in collusion with co-accused and other

political parties is only with sole intention to gain publicity,

media attention and political mileage without any credible

material or evidence whatsoever to substantiate such grave

allegations against the answering respondent.

12

14. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the personal

conversation of Suresh Rathore and Urmila Sanavar reveals that

they conspired in an organized manner to tarnish the image of

the complainant only to get some political mileage to show

complainant an alleged VIP seeking “extra services”. He submits

that instagram reels and videos initially published by co-accused

Urmila Sanavar from her social media handle, i.e.,

“@urmila_actress_bjp, @actressurmilasureshrathore and

@actressurmilasanawar”, were widely circulated across various

digital platforms having been downloaded, edited and re-

circulated by several users and such circulation and amplification

of unverified allegations has caused serious prejudice to the

reputation of the complainant.

He further submits that Delhi High Court also take serious

note of such circulation and restrained them from circulating any

such conversation and video clip in social media platform.He also

submits that even after commencement of investigation

repeatedly such conversations and video clip are being circulated

in social media platform, therefore, there may be a possibility that

the petitioner may make an attempt to fabricate or manipulate

the evidence and therefore their custodial interrogation is also

required, as most of the evidence relates to the electronic device

and if such electronic device found manipulated then it will effect

ongoing investigation.

15. Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the informant in

other FIR lodged at Haridwar placed reliance to the judgment of

Apex Court in the case of Somjeet Mallick vs. State of Jharkhand

and others (2024) 10 SCC 527 particularly by placing reliance to

para 14, 15, 16, and 18 submits that since the impugned FIR

discloses cognizable offence, therefore, FIR cannot be quashed..

13

He also placed reliance to another judgment of the Apex Court in

the case of Accamma Sam Jacob vs. State of Karnataka and others,

decided on 13.04.2026 wherein same view has been expressed

that if FIR discloses cognizable offence, the same cannot be

quashed. He also submits that petitioner has not disclosed about

his criminal antecedent, though, as a matter of fact he has

criminal antecedent and as many as there are four cases against

him apart from the impugned FIR and he deliberately suppressed

his criminal history particularly FIR No. 0076 of 2024 P.S. Syohara

District Bijnor wherein he has been implicated for the offence

punishable under Section 307 IPC.

16. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties

at length. Admittedly there are four FIRs. So far as FIR No. 0534

of 2025 is concerned which was lodged at P.S. Bahadrabad,

District Haridwar in this FIR the allegations are that the

complainant and the petitioner both are the follower of the same

community, i.e., ‘Ravidas’ and the informant is the “President of

International Shiromani Guru Ravidas Shiv Mahapeeth” and the

National President of Sant Shiromani Guru Ravidas Akhara

Bharat and with an intention to malign the image of the

respondent/complainant, the petitioner uploaded fabricated

videos, make false and defamatory imputation and the other co-

accused, namely, Urmila Sanavar is shown as wife of the

petitioner.

17. The transcription of certain video clips were also furnished

by the State Counsel and this Court perused the same and after

perusing the transcription what this Court observed that

uploading videos on social media platform with an intention to

malign the image of a person appears to be a serious issue

particularly when the allegations are without any substance.

14

Apart from this, projecting the involvement of the

respondent/complainant in a murder case of Ankita Bhandari

that too when the trial is already over and the accused persons

have already been convicted and the appeal against conviction is

pending before the Court, is also really a serious issue.

18. Now the question is why such conversations were

uploaded in the social media for projecting the

respondent/complainant to be involved in Ankita Bhandari’s

murder case, this, may be politically motivated or may be a well

planned organized conspiracy by the petitioner in association

with another accused person Ms. Urmila Sanavar and may be on

the instance of some persons who are associated with some

political parties..

Projecting a person to be involved in a heinous crime with

an ulterior purpose and motive, may be for a political gain, is

required to be investigated. No one has a right to malign the

image of a person by uploading the messages and videos in the

social media. If a person has any evidence or any information

then he may make a complaint to the competent officer so that the

competent officer may inquire but no one has a right to upload

such messages and the videos in the social media. Everybody is

governed by law and no one is above the law and the social

media platforms are not meant for all these purposes particularly

to malign the image of a person. The social media platform may

be used to highlight basic issue of public at large and not for any

other vested purposes.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed before this

Court the judgment of Delhi High Court in CS(OS) No. 16 of 2026

filed by Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam , one of the complainant .

15

Certain relevant extract of the arguments as advanced on behalf

of Mr. Gautam are being reproduced herein has under:-

“it was argued on behalf of the respondent/complainant

that with regard to Ankita Bhandari’s murder case who was

missing in September 2022 and was subsequently found dead and

case was reported for her abduction and murder and at no stage of

the investigation or trial, any investigating agency or court

named, cited or even referred to the petitioner in connection with

the said offence and till date ,no court has taken any cognizance of

any offence against Dushyant Kumar Gautam with respect to the

said incident, despite this, the petitioner in association with

Urmila Sanavar sensitize the case in public domain and released

and uploaded a series of instagram reels and related videos from

their instagram account falsely and maliciously posted the

respondent/complainant as sexual predator and insinuated that

he is the persons on whose account Ankita Bhandari was being

exploited and was ultimately killed and despite there being no

reference to him in the investigation record or there being any

judicial finding to that effect and the whole exercise of circulating

these defamatory and malicious videos and posts in social

platform has been done in order to gain publicity, media coverage

and political mileage without having any credible basis and

evidence to substantiate the same. The record reveals that Urmila

Sanvar is the primary and originating author of defamatory

imputation that the respondent/complainant was the “VIP” in

the Ankita Bhandari Case. Those uploaded videos and posts were

also published and circulated from official instagram account of

“Indian National Congress Party” under the handle “@incindia”

which given a reference “alleged VIP” angle of Ankita Bhandari

murder case in a manner that invites viewers to associate the said

VIP with the complainant/respondent thereby giving currency to

the baseless insinuations emanating from the petitioner and

Urmila Sanavar.

16

The counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that

the Indian National Congress has uploaded and hosted videos in

which party representative have made statements linking the

alleged “VIP” to a “BJP National General Secretary” in the

context of the Ankita Bhandari case, thus, encouraging viewers

to draw the defamatory inference that the said reference is about

the respondent/complainant. It is also pointed out by the learned

counsel for the respondent that instagram reels and videos

published by Urmila Sanavar on the instance of the petitioner

Suresh Rathore were widely downloaded, edited and re-circulated

across difference social platforms. ”

20. Delhi High Court in its order dated 07.01.2026 draw a

conclusion that prima facie case has been made out by the

respondent/complainant Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam and issue

directions to restrain the petitioner and co-accused Urmila

Sanavar and their agents as well as all persons acting under their

instructions from posting, uploading, publishing, circulating, re -

publishing, re-uploading or otherwise disseminating any content

which names, targets, insinuates or imputes the

respondent/complainant in the Ankita Bhandari case and also

directed them to remove various posts and videos uploaded on

social media platforms, namely, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram

and compliance affidavit was also directed to be filed within a

week.

21. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties

and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused each of the FIRs

lodged by different informants, and also gone through with the

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony

(supra) which was further followed and considered by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Bihari Lal and State

of U.P. (supra). Certain relevant extract of the judgment of

17

Rajendra Bihari Lal ( supra) are also being extracted herein as

below”-

98. This Court in T.T. Antony (supra), categorically held that any information

furnished to the officer in charge of a police station after the commencement of investigation

would constitute a statement covered by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. No such information,

subsequent to the first information, can be treated as an FIR under Section 154 of the

Cr.P.C., for that would amount to a “second FIR,” which is impermissible in law. The

scheme of the Cr.P.C. only recognizes the first information about a cognizable offence as

satisfying the requirements of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. It was held therein that there can

be no fresh investigation on receipt of subsequent information qua the same cognizable

offence/same occurrence/incident. The Court, without a scintilla of doubt, was correct in

holding that a case arising out of second FIR is a fit case for exercise of power under Section

482 of the Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant paragraphs are as

follows:

“18.[…] All other informations made orally or in writing after the

commencement of the investigation into the cognizable offence disclosed from the

facts mentioned in the first information report and entered in the station house

diary by the police officer or such other cognizable offences as may come to his

notice during the investigation, will be statements falling under Section 162 CrPC.

No such information/statement can properly be treated as an FIR and entered in

the station house diary again, as it would in effect be a second FIR and the same

cannot be in conformity with the scheme of CrPC. Take a case where an FIR

mentions cognizable offence under Section 307 or 326 IPC and the investigating

agency learns during the investigation or receives fresh information that the victim

died, no fresh FIR under Section 302 IPC need be registered which will be

irregular; in such a case alteration of the provision of law in the first FIR is the

proper course to adopt. Let us consider a different situation in which H having

killed W, his wife, informs the police that she is killed by an unknown person or

knowing that W is killed by his mother or sister, H owns up the responsibility and

during investigation the truth is detected; it does not require filing of fresh FIR

against H — the real offender — who can be arraigned in the report under Section

173(2) or 173(8) CrPC, as the case may be. It is of course permissible for the

investigating officer to send up a report to the Magistrate concerned even earlier

that investigation is being directed against the person suspected to be the accused.

Xxx

20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the

provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the

earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence

satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus there can be no second FIR

and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent

information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or

incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information

about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or

offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a

police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the

FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of

the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as

provided in Section 173 CrPC.

xxx

27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens

under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police

to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be

any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to

make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary)

and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2

SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that it would be

appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court.

However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen

each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving

rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs

whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would

clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of

the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh

investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter- case, filed

in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been

18

committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant

to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section

173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power

under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.”

(Emphasis supplied)

22. To examine whether these two FIRs are sustainable or to be

treated as successive FIR or multiple FIRs, at this juncture Section

2(wa) of Cr.p.C. is relevant which defines the victim and the same

is being reproduced herein as under:-

2(wa)["victim" means a person who has suffered any loss or injury

caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has

been charged and the expression "victim" includes his or her guardian or

legal heir;] [Inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008,

Section 2.]

The corresponding section of 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. now new Act,

i.e. BNSS 2023, Section 2(4) of BNSS 2023 is also being reproduced

herein as under:-

2(4) “counterfeit”.––A person is said to “counterfeit” who causes one thing to

resemble another thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practise

deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be practised.

On close scrutiny of this definition clause of ‘victim’

admittedly these two FIRs, i.e. FIR No. 356 of 2025 and FIR No.

534 of 2025 are lodged by the persons who are admittedly not the

victim and on close scrutiny of the FIR it also reveals that in fact

victim is the informant Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam who

already lodged the FIR No. 0004 of 2026.

23. Now in sum and substance what this Court observed that

these two FIR bearing FIR Nos. 0356 of 2026 and FIR No. 534 of

2025 contains the same allegations as alleged in the FIR No. 0004

of 2026 which was lodged by the victim, and, therefore, the

informant of both these two FIRs are neither the victim nor the

affected party, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony (supra) as well as

in the case of Rajendra Bihari Lal (supra) this Court is of the view

that both these two FIR are liable to be quashed.

19

So far as other two FIRs, i.e. FIR No. 0420 of 2025 and FIR

No. 004 of 2026 are concerned, admittedly these two FIRs have

been lodged by the informant who are in fact are the victim and

after gone through with the transcription of certain video clips as

uploaded in different social media platforms as well as the

judgment of Delhi High Court, this Court is of the view that these

two FIRs discloses prima facie cognizable offences, therefore,

requires thorough investigation and cannot be quashed. To

malign the image of a person in order to implicate in a case of

heinous crime which has already been concluded is really a

serious issue and why such conversations and the video clips

have been uploaded in the social media platform certainly

requires thorough investigation. No doubt the petitioner is from

a political background and the informant of FIR No. 0004 of 2026

is also from political background, therefore, this aspect is also

required to be investigated whether there was the political

agenda behind this and whether such conversations were

uploaded in social media platform with some ulterior purposes

and motive. Therefore, this Court is of the view that both these

two FIRs, i.e. FIR No. 0420 of 2025 lodged by Ms. Arti Gaur and

FIR No. 0004 of 2026 lodged by Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam

cannot be quashed.

24. In view of the observation and the discussion as above,

Writ Petition No. 1801 of 2025 and Writ Petition No. 96 of 2026

are dismissed and the interim order of protection are also

vacated.

So far as Writ Petition No. 39 of 2026 and Writ Petition No.

13 of 2026 are concerned, both the writ petitions are allowed and

the impugned FIR dated 26.12.2025, bearing FIR No. 356 of 2025

registered at P.S. Jhabrera District Haridwar and FIR dated

20

24.12.2025 bearing FIR No. 0 534 of 2025 registered at P.S.

Bahadrabad, District Haridwar are also hereby quashed.

25. It is also further made clear that the informant of both the

FIRs, i.e. Ms Arti Gaur and Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam if have

any threat perception from the persons who are named in the FIR

during investigation they may approach to the D.G.P. concerned

as well as to the S.S.P. and the D.G.P. as well as S.S.P. shall assess

the threat perception if any and take appropriate steps to secure

their life and liberty.

26. No order as to costs.

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

Parul