Court Observes Lack of Incriminating Material and Prolonged Investigation Violated Petitioner's Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21
In a significant judgment delivered on September 8, 2026, the Uttarakhand High Court, headed by Justice Alok Mahra, quashed the First Information Report (FIR) and all subsequent criminal proceedings against Mritunjay Kumar Mishra, who was accused under Sections 386, 388, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case pertained to allegations of intimidation and criminal conspiracy linked to a sting operation against the then Chief Minister of Uttarakhand.
The FIR was lodged in 2018 by a reporter of a news channel, Samachar Plus, alleging that the channel's CEO had tasked him with conducting a sting operation on the Chief Minister and that the petitioner was purportedly involved in assisting the reporter in securing an appointment with the Chief Minister. However, the petitioner was not alleged to have committed any overt act such as threatening or extortion.
The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Lalit Sharma, argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated without any specific role attributed to him in the FIR. The investigation concluded with a charge-sheet filed only against the CEO and another accused, Rahul Bhatia, in 2019. The petitioner neither faced a charge-sheet nor was any incriminating evidence found against him. The counsel further cited the Supreme Court's decision in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu vs. State of Bihar (2025 SCC Online SC 2511), emphasizing the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 and condemning prolonged investigations without justification.
The State, represented by Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A., conceded that no incriminating material was found against the petitioner despite multiple changes in investigating officers during the probe.
Justice Mahra noted that even accepting the FIR allegations at face value, they did not disclose any specific criminal act by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that continuing criminal proceedings without prima facie material would amount to an abuse of the process of law and cause unwarranted harassment. The Court also observed that the fundamental right to a fair and expeditious trial prohibits indefinite criminal prosecution when no material supports such proceedings.
Invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against Mritunjay Kumar Mishra, marking a crucial reaffirmation of the principle that criminal law must not be used as a tool for harassment in the absence of credible evidence.
Bottom Line:
Quashing of FIR under Sections 386, 388, and 120-B IPC - Criminal proceedings against petitioner quashed due to lack of incriminating material, absence of specific role attributed to petitioner, and prolonged investigation violating principles of fairness under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 386, 388, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Article 21 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Mritunjay Kumar Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand, (Uttarakhand) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2982002
