Supreme Court of India
SUNEEL KUMAR AHIRWAR VS. STATE OF U.P. - on 28 October 2026
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.6 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No.52360/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-04-2026
in AU528BNSS No. 11045/2026 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad]
SUNEEL KUMAR AHIRWAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 322817/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP, IA
No. 322819/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING SLP AND IA
No. 322815/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 28-10-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Ankur Rastogi, Adv.
Mrs. Priya Rastogi, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta- 1269, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Exemption Application is allowed.
3. Heard Mr. Ankur Rastogi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
4. We take notice of the fact that on the very same day when the impugned Order was passed, one another Order came to be passed by the same learned Judge of the High Court in application under Section 528 BNSS No.13328 of 2026 wherein in para 5, the Court observed thus:- “5. Learned counsel next submitted that the applicant had never contacted any of the accused persons, nor met them in the past, and had no direct or indirect connection with them in any manner Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2026.10.28 17:13:34 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified whatsoever. It was further submitted that the applicant is not a beneficiary, whether in whole or in part, of any alleged illegal payments made to the accused persons, and that no evidence has been found against him during the course of investigation. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that there is hardly any evidence against applicant to corroborate them with the alleged incident. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that without conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicant whereupon without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned took cognizance of offence over the said chargesheet which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed.”
5. The High Court while observing so, proceeded to quash the criminal proceedings against the applicant therein.
6. While on the very same FIR, the present petitioner also prayed for quashing, however, the quashing was declined.
7. We need some clarification in this regard from the State.
8. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks.
9. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
10. Liberty is granted to serve the Standing counsel for the State of U.P. (VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)