Sanidhya Mittal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Heard Sri Kartikey Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Anoop Srivastava, learned Advocate/Caveator of opposite party No.4.

¶12

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following main relief:

¶13

" Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure No.1) registered as Crime No./FIR No.250 of 2025 under Sections 316(2) and 336(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Hasanganj, District Unnao along with the consequential inquiry, investigation being conducted on the basis of the said FIR, quo the petitioner."

¶14

Sri Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the impugned FIR, wherein the informant has alleged against the petitioner changing his gender saying Sanidhya Mittal W/o Mr. Rajesh Mittal whereas, the petitioner is a male and his father's name is Mr. Rajesh Mittal. Sri Dubey has stated that the opposite party No.4 has never met with the petitioner as the petitioner is residing and settled at Calcutta , though, one unit office firm in the name of Green Ply Sandila Pvt. Ltd. is situated at Sandila, District Hardoi. In the entire FIR, there is no specific allegation against the present petitioner and so as to exert the pressure as he is a Director of the company, he has been implicated.

¶15

CRLP No. 7572 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

Further attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.7, which is a notice issued against the petitioner from the office of Assistant Commissioner, G.S.T. Hardoi demanding him the G.S.T. to the tune of Rs.15,96,33,796.64/- . The aforesaid notice is an outcome of misdeed and foul play of the opposite party No.4, therefore, a legal notice was sent to the firm of opposite party No.4 by the petitioner through his Advocate, which has been enclosed as Annexure No.11. Sri Dubey has stated that the matter was sent to the pre-litigation mediation but on account of aforesaid development that one notice has been issued against the petitioner by the G.S.T. department such mediation could not be worked out.

¶18

Sri Dubey has also drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 11.08.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.7336 of 2025; Lalit Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others being filed by local Manager of the petitioner's company and he is properly cooperating in the investigation in compliance of the order of this Court. The petitioner has nothing to do with the allegations of the FIR, therefore, he may be exempted to participate in the investigation.

¶19

Sri Dubey has also stated that since the allegation so levelled against the petitioner by the opposite party No.4 are unwarranted and based on unfounded grounds, therefore his FIR might have not been lodged by the police officer. The opposite party No.4 filed an application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. and pursuant to the order being passed by the concerned court, the impugned FIR has been lodged. However, the impugned FIR is nothing but to creating defence by the opposite party No.4 which is commonly known as 'Peshbandi' therefore the impugned FIR may be quashed being misconceived.

¶20

Matter requires consideration.

¶21

Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks.

¶22

Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within a period of two weeks.

¶23

List this case in the week commencing 10^th November, 2025.

¶24

Until further order of the Court, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR/Crime No. 250 of 2025 under

¶25

CRLP No. 7572 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

Sections 316(2) and 336(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Hasanganj, District Unnao.

¶28

However, since the petitioner has been implicated as accused in the present case and his culpability, if any, may be tested either by investigating agency or by the court after exchange of the affidavit so he may submit his explanation/statement on affidavit addressing to the Investigating Officer and that affidavit may be filed by his local Manager, namely, Lalit Kumar Singh, who is cooperating in the investigation and Investigating Officer may take that affidavit on record and if need be, he may ask some questions from him online making proper arrangements to that effect inasmuch as the petitioner need not appear in person before the Investigating Officer.

¶29

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) September 11, 2025

¶30

Reena/-

¶31

Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanidhya Mittal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanidhya Mittal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satpal Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Umme Salma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Abdul Salaam and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Mahendra Pratap @ Mahendra Pratap Gautam and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Kalpnath Verma and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Ram Sumer Yadav Ailas Sumer and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others