1. Petition to quash FIR alleging offences under BNS and IT Act; charge sheet filed despite interim stay of investigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 98106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Rajnish Kumar, Babita Rani, JJ
Ashutosh Kumar Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7968 of 2026
Important Points
An FIR for public mischief may be stayed if the accused had reasonable grounds to believe the information circulated was true, and where the ingredients of the alleged offences (such as obstruction of public servants or public nuisance) are not prima facie established.
Subject
Criminal - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.221, S.292, S.353(1)(b), S.270
Information Technology Act, 2000: S.66D
Information Technology Act, 2000: S.66D
Headnote
(A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Prima facie analysis - Where the allegations in the FIR regarding circulation of information about recruitment irregularities do not attract the ingredients of obstructing public servants, public nuisance, or cheating by personation, the court may interfere to stay coercive action. (Para 6, 8, 10)
(B) Public Mischief - Statements regarding recruitment irregularities - Exception for reasonable belief - A statement conducing to public mischief is not an offence if the person making it has reasonable grounds to believe the information is true. (Para 9)
Issues: Whether the FIR lodged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and IT Act for posting allegations about recruitment irregularities on social media was sustainable.
(B) Public Mischief - Statements regarding recruitment irregularities - Exception for reasonable belief - A statement conducing to public mischief is not an offence if the person making it has reasonable grounds to believe the information is true. (Para 9)
Issues: Whether the FIR lodged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and IT Act for posting allegations about recruitment irregularities on social media was sustainable.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences against the public
- public nuisance
- statements conducing to public mischief
-
offences against the state
- obstructing public servant
-
computer-related offences
- cheating by personation
-
offences against the public
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Utkarsh Misra, Abhishek, Jai Shukla
For the Respondents: G.A.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Utkarsh Misra, Abhishek, Jai Shukla
For the Respondents: G.A.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends FIR offences not attracted; public nuisance lacks public complaint; exception applies for reasonable belief; respondent failed to investigate allegations. (Para 5 )
3. Prima facie case for interference made out; interim stay granted; later matter listed for compliance and explanation of investigation despite stay. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
4. FIR may be stayed when alleged offences prima facie not attracted; investigation after stay requires explanation. (Para 3 )
5. Stay of FIR continued; SHO directed to file personal affidavit explaining investigation and charge sheet; matter listed for further hearing. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
6. Whether continuation of investigation and filing of charge sheet is permissible after an interim stay of the FIR?
The court directed the SHO to explain how investigation and charge sheet were forwarded despite the stay order, indicating such action may require justification. (Para 3 )
1. Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA after serving a copy on the counsel for the petitioner today is taken on record.
2. Learned AGA, on the basis of instructions, submits that after investigation into the FIR/Case Crime NO. 0067 of 2026 under Sections 221 , 292, 353(1)(b) of BNS, 2023 and Section 66D of I.T. Act at Police Station-Hussainganj, District Lucknow, charge sheet has been forwarded on 21.9.2026 wheres by means of order dated 11.8.2026 the impugned FIR was stayed under the following order:
"1. Heard Shri Utkarsh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the respondents-State No.1 to 3. Learned A.G.A. states that he would be accepting notice on behalf of respondent No.4 also.
2. Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit to which reply may be filed within next two weeks.
3. List thereafter.
4. By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No.67 of 2026 under Sections 221 , 292, 353(1)(b) B.N.S., 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'Sanhita, 2023'), 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2008'), Police Station Hussainganj, 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a perusal of the impugned FIR indicates that the same has been lodged under Sections 221 , 292 and 353(1)(b) of the Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66D of the Act, 2008. It is contended that a perusal of the impugned FIR indicates that the petitioner is alleged to have circulated a post on Facebook on 09.05.2026 regarding certain irregularities allegedly committed in the State Sub-Inspector Recruitment Examination, 2025, of which the select list was issued on 07.05.2026. It is contended that the impugned FIR has been lodged under the aforesaid provisions by respondent No. 4.
6. The contention is that none of the offences under which the impugned FIR has been lodged are attracted. Elaborating the same, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Section 221 of the Sanhita, 2023 pertains to obstructing any public servant in the discharge of his public functions. A perusal of the impugned FIR indicates that the petitioner has not obstructed any public servant in the discharge of his public functions.
7. Likewise, Section 292 of the Sanhita, 2023 pertains to punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for. Public nuisance is defined under Section 270 of the Sanhita, 2023, whereby a person is guilty of public nuisance if he does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity.
8. The contention is that a perusal of the impugned FIR does not indicate that there has been any illegal omission on the part of the petitioner which may have caused any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public. It is contended that if at all any annoyance was caused to the public, it was for the public to have lodged the FIR and not for an Inspector, namely respondent No. 4, to have done so.
9. So far as Section 353(1)(b) of the Sanhita, 2023 is concerned, the contention is that the same pertains to statements conducing to public mischief. However, the respondent authorities have prima facie failed to take note of the exception clause contained in Section 353 of the Sanhita, 2023, which clearly indicates that a statement conducing to public mischief would not amount to an offence within the meaning of the said section where the person making, publishing or circulating any such statement, alleged false information, rumour or report, has reasonable grounds for believing that such statement, false information, rumour or report is true. Once the petitioner believed that certain irregularities had been committed in the State Sub-Inspector Recruitment Examination, 2025, it was incumbent upon the authorities to have investigated the same rather than lodging an FIR ag
