High Court Denies Relief to Man Accused of Instigating Mob, Cites Evasion of Arrest and Defiance of Court Orders

NAINITAL: The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Madan Mohan Joshi seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) that named him in a mob assault case. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay, ruled that it would not interfere in the police investigation, especially when the petitioner has been evading arrest and a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) is pending against him.

The court emphasized that granting protection to an individual who is defying lawful orders would be unsustainable in law, firmly rejecting the plea to quash the FIR for offences of attempt to murder and unlawful assembly under the new Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

---

Background of the Case

The case originates from an FIR filed on October 23, 2025, at Ramnagar Police Station, Nainital. The petitioner, Madan Mohan Joshi, was accused under Sections 109 (Attempt to murder) and 190 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in persecution of common object) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The incident involved a mob stopping a vehicle and assaulting its driver over suspicions of transporting cow meat. The petitioner sought the quashing of the FIR and an order protecting him from arrest.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Stance: Mr. Lalit Sharma, counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client was a "good Samaritan" and an animal lover who had, in fact, informed the police about the alleged illegal transport of meat. He contended that Joshi rushed to the spot and started a Facebook live stream to placate the angry mob and save the victim. The petitioner claimed his inclusion in the FIR was mischievous and that the complainant, the victim's wife, was not an eyewitness and had named him based on hearsay.

State's Counter-Arguments: Mr. J.S. Virk, the Deputy Advocate General, presented a starkly different narrative based on a report from the Circle Officer. The State argued that the petitioner was a key instigator who used social media to spread false claims that the vehicle carried cow meat, thereby inciting the mob. The police report stated that the petitioner's live telecast of the near-lynching led to a large gathering and escalated tensions.

The State further highlighted the petitioner's conduct post-incident, noting that he had been continuously evading police, ignoring notices to join the investigation, and defying a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued by a magistrate. Consequently, proceedings to declare him a proclaimed offender had been initiated.

Legal Precedents and Court's Reasoning

The High Court's decision was heavily influenced by established legal principles and the petitioner's conduct. The bench referenced two key Supreme Court judgments:

1. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra : This case cautions against granting interim orders restraining arrest when the court is not inclined to quash the FIR itself.
   
   
2. Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another : The court relied significantly on this precedent, which holds that granting anticipatory bail or protection to a person found in defiance of lawful orders, such as an NBW, is unsustainable.

The court observed: > "Where the petitioner has been named of a conginzable offence, it would not be appropriate and legal for this Court to pronounce on the correctness of the allegations at the stage of FIR... It would be preempting the fair investigation if the hands of the police are tied down, more so, when the petitioner himself admits his presence in the place of occurrence."

The bench found that since the writ petition was filed after an NBW was issued and proceedings to declare him a proclaimed offender were initiated, the principles laid down in Srikant Upadhyay squarely applied.

The court also took note of a Facebook post by the petitioner where he claimed he was starting a "Kranti" (revolution), which the bench termed "condemnable" as it derided democratically elected governments.

Final Decision and Implications

Concluding that the petition lacked merit, the High Court rejected it in its entirety. The court clarified that its observations were made solely for the purpose of deciding the petition and should not be treated as conclusive findings on the merits of the criminal case.

This judgment reinforces the principle that an accused cannot seek discretionary relief from a higher court while simultaneously evading the due process of law at the trial court level. It underscores that cooperation with the investigation and respect for court orders are prerequisites for seeking remedies like the quashing of an FIR.