Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Uttaranchal High Court: While considering a batch of 4 petitions filed by Suresh Rathore, former MLA, for quashing of FIRs on the ground that all 4 FIRs did not disclose any cognizable offence and that he was himself a victim and had not uploaded any conversation with his wife in any social media platform pertaining to the Ankita Bhandari’s murder case, a Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Thapliyal, J., held that while 2 FIRs were liable to be quashed, the remaining 2 prima facie disclosed cognizable offences and therefore required thorough investigation.
The Court observed that,
“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.”
Also read: Ankita Bhandari Murder Case | Uttaranchal High Court rejects bail plea of main accused Pulkit Arya
Background
In the present case, 4 FIRs were filed under Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) as well as the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 against Suresh Rathore, Urmila Sanavar, his wife, and other persons of different political parties.
In FIR Nos. 420 of 2025 and 4 of 2026, it was alleged that 3 years back a girl went missing and was murdered. Thereafter, a case was registered, and, upon investigation, 3 persons were charge-sheeted. The trial court convicted all 3 accused persons and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment. After 3 years, Urmila Sanavar uploaded certain video clips containing personal conversations with Suresh Rathore on different social media platforms, including a Facebook account, containing extremely abusive and vulgar language in order to get political mileage. It was further alleged that Suresh Rathore, his wife, and some unknown persons belonging to different political parties were uploading fake audio and video clips of their conversations on different social media platforms using extremely vulgar and abusive language with an intention to malign the reputation of the informants and, as part of a well-planned conspiracy, falsely implicate them in the said murder case.
In FIR Nos. 356 and 534 of 2025, it was alleged that Suresh Rathore and his wife were making false and misleading statements by uploading their audio clips on different social media platforms against 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, thereby causing deep hurt to the followers of the Ravidas Community.
Aggrieved by the said FIRs, Suresh Rathore approached the High Court.
Issues, Analysis and Decision
The Court perused the transcription of video clips that were furnished before it and observed that uploading videos on social media platform with an intention to malign the image of a person appeared to be a serious issue particularly when the allegations were without any substance. The Court further stated that projecting the involvement in a murder case that too when the trial had been completed, the accused persons were already convicted, and the appeal against conviction was pending, was also really a serious issue.
The Court stated that the issue at hand was as to why such conversations were uploaded in the social media for projecting the complainant to be involved in Ankita Bhandari’s murder case as it could be politically motivated or be a well-planned organised conspiracy either by the petitioner in association with his wife or by other accused persons associated with some political parties.
The Court stated that “no one has a right to malign the image of a person by uploading the messages and videos in the social media”. The Court further stated that everybody is governed by law, 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.”
The Court further observed that if a person possesses any evidence or information regarding the commission of an offence, the proper course is to approach the competent authorities so that the matter may be investigated in accordance with law. However, no individual has a right to circulate messages, videos, or allegations on social media platforms with the object of tarnishing another person’s reputation.
Considering victim’s definition given under Section 2(1)(y) BNSS [Section 2(wa), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973], the Court stated that FIR Nos. 356 and 534 of 2025 were lodged by the persons who are admittedly not the victim and the FIR also reveals that in fact victim was the informant, Dushyant Kumar Gautam, who had already lodged FIR No. 4 of 2026. Thus, relying on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2265 the Court quashed the 2 said FIRs.
Regarding the other 2 FIRs, the Court held that both prima facie disclosed cognizable offences, therefore, required thorough investigation and could not be quashed. Further, the Court stated that “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”.
Further, the Court stated that the aspect that the petitioner was from a political background and the informant of FIR No. 4 of 2026 was also from political background, therefore, was required to be investigated as to whether there was the political agenda behind the same and whether such conversations were uploaded in social media platform with some ulterior purposes and motive. Thus, the Court opined that FIR Nos. 420 of 2025 and 4 of 2026 could not be quashed.
The Court stated that if the informants of both the FIRs face any threat perception from the persons who are named in the FIR during investigation, they could approach the Director General of Police as well as Senior Superintendent of Police and they would assess the same and take appropriate steps to secure their life and liberty.
[Suresh Rathore v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Writ Petition No. 96 of 2026, decided on 3-6-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Vaibhav Singh Chauhan and S.K. Shandilya, advocates
For the Respondent: B.C. Josh, A.G.A.
For the Complainant: Navneet Kaushik and Vineet Singh, advocates
