Uttarakhand HC Quashes Two of Four FIRs Against Ex-MLA Suresh Rathore Over Social Media Posts Linking Politician to Ankita Bhandari Case
The High Court quashed two Haridwar FIRs as impermissible successive FIRs but refused to quash two others, finding prima facie cognisable offences in social media posts targeting a political figure.
Justice Sri Rakesh Thapliyal of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, sitting singly, delivered a split verdict on 3 June 2026 in a batch of four criminal writ petitions filed by Suresh Rathore, a former MLA from Jwalapur Constituency. All four petitions sought quashing of separate FIRs registered across Dehradun and Haridwar districts under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008. The court quashed two FIRs registered at police stations in Haridwar, finding them to be impermissible successive FIRs lodged by persons who were neither victims nor affected parties. The remaining two FIRs — one lodged by a Dehradun resident and another by a senior political figure — were held to disclose prima facie cognisable offences and were allowed to proceed to investigation.
The Four FIRs and the Allegations
The four FIRs at the centre of this batch were registered between 24 December 2025 and 5 January 2026. Each implicated Suresh Rathore and one Urmila Sanavar, described in the FIRs as his associate.
FIR No. 0420 of 2025 was lodged on 24 December 2025 at P.S. Nehru Colony, Dehradun by one Arti Gaur, a Member of District Panchayat. She alleged that Urmila Sanavar, a resident of Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, uploaded video clips containing abusive and vulgar language on social media platforms including Facebook, and that the informant was being harassed and threatened with false implication in the Ankita Bhandari murder case. The FIR invoked Sections 308(7), 351(2), 352 and 79 of BNS 2023 read with Section 67 of the IT (Amendment) Act 2008.
FIR No. 0534 of 2025 was lodged on 24 December 2025 at P.S. Bahadrabad, Haridwar by one Dr. Dharmendra Kumar. He alleged that Rathore and Urmila Sanavar uploaded false and misleading audio clips on social media against one Dushyant Kumar Gautam, described as President of the “International Shiromani Guru Ravidas Shiv Mahapeeth” and National President of “Sant Shiromani Guru Ravidas Akhara Bharat”, with intent to malign his reputation and hurt the sentiments of the Ravidas community. Sections 248(b), 336(4) and 3(5) of BNS 2023 were invoked.
FIR No. 0356 of 2025 was lodged on 26 December 2025 at P.S. Jhabrera, Haridwar by one Sanchit Kumar, containing substantially the same allegations against Rathore and Urmila Sanavar regarding posts targeting Dushyant Kumar Gautam. The same BNS provisions were cited.
FIR No. 0004 of 2026 was lodged on 5 January 2026 at P.S. Dalanwala, Dehradun by Dushyant Kumar Gautam himself. He alleged that Rathore, described as Ex-MLA, and Urmila Sanavar, along with unknown persons from different political parties, uploaded fake audio and video clips using vulgar language to malign his reputation and implicate him in the Ankita Bhandari murder case. Sections 336(4), 353(2), 356(3) and 61(2) of BNS 2023 read with Sections 66D and 66E of the IT (Amendment) Act 2008 were invoked.
The Ankita Bhandari case, referenced across all four FIRs, concerned a receptionist who went missing in September 2022 and was found dead on 18 September 2022. A trial concluded with the accused persons convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment; their appeal against conviction was pending before the High Court at the time of this judgment.
The Petitioner's Case for Quashing
Counsel for Rathore, Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan and Mr. S.K. Shandilya, advanced two distinct lines of argument depending on which FIR was under challenge.
For FIR No. 0534 of 2025 and FIR No. 0356 of 2025, the argument was that the informants of both FIRs were neither victims nor affected parties within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 2(Y) of BNSS 2023). The actual victim, Dushyant Kumar Gautam, had himself lodged FIR No. 0004 of 2026. The two Haridwar FIRs, containing the same allegations as the Gautam FIR, were therefore successive FIRs and liable to be quashed under the law laid down by the Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 181. Counsel also relied on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P., decided on 17 October 2025 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1234 of 2023, INSC 1249, which had followed and elaborated upon T.T. Antony.
For FIR No. 0420 of 2025 and FIR No. 0004 of 2026, the argument was that the allegations were false and frivolous, that Rathore had not uploaded any conversation with Urmila Sanavar on any social media platform, that no date or time was specified in the FIRs for any such act, and that no cognisable offence was disclosed against him. Counsel also argued that Rathore had no enmity with Gautam, having previously belonged to the same political party, and that Urmila Sanavar was not his legally wedded wife. Counsel drew the court's attention to a Delhi High Court judgment in CS(OS) No. 16 of 2026, filed by Dushyant Kumar Gautam against Urmila Sanavar and others, arguing that even that judgment did not connect Rathore to the allegations.
The State and Complainants' Response
The State, through learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. B.C. Joshi, submitted that all four FIRs were under active investigation and that the petitioner's cooperation was required. The investigating officer had collected audio clips containing conversations between Rathore and Urmila Sanavar, with transcripts placed on record. Voice samples of both had been sent for forensic analysis to the Central Forensic Laboratory, Chandigarh, along with their mobile phones, after obtaining court permission; the report was awaited. The State also disclosed that in FIR No. 365 of 2025, Section 308 had been deleted and investigation was continuing under Sections 350(1), 352 and 79 of BNS 2023 read with Section 67 of the IT Act.
The State further disclosed that Urmila Sanavar was an actress from the Mumbai film industry who had previously been married to one Ajay Sharma, with two adult sons, and had subsequently solemnised a Gandharva Vivah with Rathore in Nepal.
Counsel for complainant Dushyant Kumar Gautam, Mr. Navneet Kaushik, submitted that Gautam was a senior political figure, a former Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament and National General Secretary of a national political party, who had earned considerable public goodwill. He argued that Rathore and Urmila Sanavar had repeatedly uploaded objectionable content across Facebook, YouTube and Instagram, that the Delhi High Court had on 7 January 2026 found a prima facie case and restrained both from posting or circulating any content linking Gautam to the Ankita Bhandari case, and that custodial interrogation might be necessary given the risk of evidence tampering with electronic devices. He relied on M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online SC 315, for the proposition that courts should not interfere with investigation of cognisable offences except in the rarest of cases.
Counsel for the Haridwar complainants relied on Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2024) 10 SCC 527, and Accamma Sam Jacob v. State of Karnataka and Others, decided on 13 April 2026, for the position that an FIR disclosing a cognisable offence cannot be quashed. He also pointed out that Rathore had suppressed his criminal antecedents, including FIR No. 0076 of 2024 at P.S. Syohara, District Bijnor, where he was implicated under Section 307 IPC, and that four other cases existed against him apart from the impugned FIRs.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Thapliyal approached the four FIRs in two groups.
For FIR No. 0534 of 2025 and FIR No. 0356 of 2025, the court examined the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC and noted that the corresponding provision in BNSS 2023 is Section 2(Y). The court found that the informants of both Haridwar FIRs were admittedly not the victims of the alleged conduct. The actual victim was Dushyant Kumar Gautam, who had himself lodged FIR No. 0004 of 2026. The allegations in the two Haridwar FIRs were, on close scrutiny, substantially the same as those in Gautam's FIR.
The court extracted at length from T.T. Antony and from paragraph 98 of Rajendra Bihari Lal, which reaffirmed that only the first information about a cognisable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC, that no second FIR can be registered in respect of the same cognisable offence or the same occurrence, and that a case arising out of a second FIR is a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution. The court applied this principle even though the two Haridwar FIRs were chronologically registered before Gautam's FIR of 5 January 2026, treating Gautam's FIR as the operative first FIR because it was lodged by the actual victim in respect of the same allegations.
The court rejected the complainants' argument that the Haridwar FIRs contained different allegations because the hurt was felt by the Ravidas community. On close scrutiny, the court found the core allegations to be the same: the uploading of fabricated audio and video clips to malign Gautam's image and link him to the Ankita Bhandari murder case.
For FIR No. 0420 of 2025 and FIR No. 0004 of 2026, the court took a different view. Both FIRs were lodged by persons who were themselves the victims. The court perused the transcription of video clips placed on record and observed that uploading videos on social media with intent to malign a person's image was a serious matter, particularly when the allegations were without substance. The court found it especially serious that the content projected Gautam's involvement in the Ankita Bhandari murder case at a stage when the trial had concluded, the accused had been convicted, and the appeal was pending. The court observed that whether the uploads were politically motivated or part of an organised conspiracy required thorough investigation. It held that both FIRs disclosed prima facie cognisable offences and could not be quashed.
The court also took note of the Delhi High Court's order dated 7 January 2026 in CS(OS) No. 16 of 2026, which had found a prima facie case for Gautam and restrained Rathore, Urmila Sanavar and their agents from posting, uploading, publishing or circulating any content naming or insinuating Gautam in connection with the Ankita Bhandari case, and had directed removal of posts and videos from YouTube, Facebook and Instagram.
On the broader question of social media conduct, the court observed that no person has a right to malign another's image by uploading messages and videos on social media, and that if a person has evidence or information, the appropriate course is to make a complaint to a competent officer rather than to circulate content on social media platforms.
Order
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1801 of 2025 (challenging FIR No. 0420 of 2025, P.S. Nehru Colony, Dehradun) and Criminal Writ Petition No. 96 of 2026 (challenging FIR No. 0004 of 2026, P.S. Dalanwala, Dehradun) were dismissed. The interim orders of protection granted in those petitions were vacated.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 39 of 2026 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 13 of 2026 were allowed. FIR No. 0356 of 2025 dated 26 December 2025, registered at P.S. Jhabrera, District Haridwar, and FIR No. 0534 of 2025 dated 24 December 2025, registered at P.S. Bahadrabad, District Haridwar, were quashed.
The court further directed that if the informants of the surviving FIRs — Ms. Arti Gaur and Mr. Dushyant Kumar Gautam — perceived any threat from persons named in the FIRs during the investigation, they may approach the DGP and SSP concerned, who shall assess the threat perception and take appropriate steps to secure their life and liberty. No order as to costs was made.