MRITUNJAY KUMAR MISHRA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010180222018

2026:UHC:8049
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

WPCRL/2092/2018


Mritunjay Kumar Mishra
--Petitioner

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent


Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Lalit Sharma and Ms. Anmol Sandhu,
Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the State of
Uttarakhand.

2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner seeks
quashing of F.I.R./Case Crime No.100 of 2018, under
Section 386, 388, 120-B of I.P.C., registered at Police
Station Rajpur, District Dehradun.

3. An F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no.3, who
claimed himself to be a Reporter of a news channel,
namely, Samachar Plus. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that
the C.E.O. of the said news channel had assigned a
task to the informant to conduct a sting operation of
the then Chief Minister of the State. It is further
alleged that the petitioner, along with certain other
persons, was stated to have been informed by the
C.E.O. as being capable of assisting the informant in
securing an appointment with the then Chief Minister.
According to the informant, he met the then Chief
Minister; however, being apprehensive, he could not
conduct the proposed sting operation. Thereafter, the
C.E.O. and another person allegedly threatened him
that, in case he failed to make the sting operation
successful, his career would be ruined and he would
be killed at a place where even birds could not reach.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has been falsely implicated and that no
specific overt act or role has been attributed to him in
the F.I.R. It is contended that the only reference to the
petitioner is that the C.E.O. of the channel had
informed the informant that the petitioner would
assist him in securing an appointment with the then
Chief Minister. Learned counsel submits that, apart
from the aforesaid reference, there is no allegation

UKHC010180222018

2026:UHC:8049
whatsoever against the petitioner suggesting that he
had threatened, intimidated, demanded any amount
or committed any act constituting an offence under
Sections 386, 388 or 120-B of the I.P.C. It is further
submitted that the investigation has already
culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet against the
C.E.O. of the channel and one Rahul Bhatia on
25.03.2019, whereas the petitioner has neither been
charge-sheeted nor has any incriminating material
been collected against him. It is, therefore, contended
that permitting the criminal proceedings to continue
against the petitioner, despite the absence of any
material connecting him with the alleged offences,
would amount to an abuse of the process of law and
would cause undue harassment to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu alias R.L.
Chongthu Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2511, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
expressed serious concern over an unexplained and
inordinate delay in completion of investigation and
observed that, although no rigid outer time-limit can
ordinarily be prescribed for investigation, an
unjustifiably prolonged investigation may, in an
appropriate case, offend the accused’s fundamental
right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. It was further observed that
where the investigating agency is unable to furnish a
cogent justification for such prolonged investigation,
an accused cannot be subjected indefinitely to the
continuing threat and uncertainty of criminal
proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that,
after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the C.E.O. of the channel and
Rahul Bhatia on 25.03.2019. It is further submitted
that during the course of investigation as many as ten
Investigating Officers were changed, which fact is
evident from paragraph no.11 of the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of respondent no.1. However, learned
State Counsel, on the basis of the instructions and
the material disclosed in the counter affidavit, fairly
submits that no incriminating material was found
against the petitioner during the course of
investigation and that the petitioner has not been
charge-sheeted.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and
upon perusal of the material placed on record, this
Court finds that the continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the petitioner cannot be justified.
The allegations contained in the F.I.R., even if taken
at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do
not disclose any specific overt act on the part of the
petitioner constituting the offences punishable under

UKHC010180222018

2026:UHC:8049
Sections 386 or 388 of the I.P.C. The mere assertion
that the C.E.O. had informed the informant that the
petitioner would assist him in securing an
appointment with the then Chief Minister, without
any further allegation of threat, extortion, putting the
informant in fear of injury, or participation in the
alleged criminal conspiracy, cannot by itself constitute
the ingredients of the offences alleged against the
petitioner. More importantly, the investigation has
already been concluded and has resulted in the filing
of a charge-sheet against two other accused persons.
The investigating agency, despite having changed ten
Investigating Officers during the course of
investigation, has admittedly not collected any
incriminating material against the petitioner. The
State itself has fairly conceded that the petitioner has
not been charge-sheeted. Thus, there is no material
before this Court which may prima facie connect the
petitioner with the commission of the offences alleged
in the F.I.R.

7. It is also significant that the F.I.R. pertains to
the year 2018 and the charge-sheet against the other
accused persons was submitted as far back as on
25.03.2019. Despite the passage of considerable time
thereafter, the investigating agency has not collected
any material against the petitioner. In such
circumstances, keeping the petitioner under the
perpetual apprehension of criminal prosecution,
without there being any material capable of sustaining
such proceedings, would be contrary to the principles
of fairness and would amount to subjecting him to an
indefinite and unwarranted criminal process. The
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
read with the principles governing exercise of inherent
jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law,
can certainly be exercised where the allegations, even
if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the
commission of an offence by the accused or where
continuation of the criminal proceedings, in the
absence of any supporting material, would result in
abuse of the process of the Court. The present case, in
the considered opinion of this Court, falls within such
parameters.

8. This Court is conscious of the settled principle
that at the stage of investigation or while considering
a prayer for quashing of an F.I.R., the Court ordinarily
does not undertake a meticulous examination of the
evidence or embark upon an appreciation of disputed
questions of fact. However, the present case stands on
a different footing. The investigation has already been
completed; the investigating agency has submitted the
charge-sheet against the persons against whom
material was found; and, as fairly conceded by the
State, no incriminating material whatsoever has been
found against the petitioner. Therefore, there remains

UKHC010180222018

2026:UHC:8049
no legitimate basis for permitting the criminal
proceedings to continue against the petitioner merely
on the basis of a reference to his name in the F.I.R.,
particularly when no specific role has been attributed
to him. Further, the prolonged pendency of the
criminal proceedings, coupled with the admitted
absence of incriminating material against the
petitioner, assumes significance in the light of the
fundamental right to a fair and expeditious criminal
process guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Criminal law cannot be
permitted to operate as an instrument of indefinite
harassment where the investigating agency itself has,
upon completion of investigation, found no material
warranting prosecution of the concerned person.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the
considered view that continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the petitioner would serve no
useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the
process of law. The petitioner cannot be compelled to
face the rigours and uncertainty of criminal
proceedings in the absence of any prima facie material
connecting him with the alleged offences.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
F.I.R./Case Crime No.100 of 2018, under Sections
386, 388 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun,
and all consequential proceedings emanating
therefrom, are hereby quashed, qua the petitioner.



(Alok Mahra, J.)
08.09.2026
Arpan

ARPAN
JAISWAL
Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a2
0dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109C
B987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.09.08 18:11:41 +05'30'