Disposed¶¶4

Jitendra Chawla v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC5 May 2026WPCRL/784/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Sections 103(1) 115(2) 318(4) 351(3) 352 61; Section 35(3) BNSS 2023 notice to accused; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 guidelines; offences punishable up to seven years; post-mortem; cardiac arrest; deletion of sections after post-mortem; Investigating Officer directions; Police Station I.T.I.; Udham Singh Nagar; WPCRL No. 784 of 2026; WPCRL No. 764 of 2026; Jitendra Chawla; Varun Kumar Sharma; Uttarakhand High Court; Rakesh Thapliyal J.; 05.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions to the Investigating Officer to follow the Arnesh Kumar (2014) 8 SCC 273 guidelines and to issue notices to the petitioners under Section 35 (3) BNSS, 2023 as and when their presence is required during investigation; the prayer for quashing of the FIR was not granted.

Jitendra Chawla Vs State of Uttarakhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Uttarakhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶4

Issue for consideration

Whether, the remaining offences being punishable with a maximum sentence of up to seven years, the Investigating Officer is legally obliged to follow the Arnesh Kumar guidelines and issue notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023 while conducting the investigation. +1 more

¶¶4

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Officer to follow the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273.

¶¶4

Ratio / Principle

The Investigating Officer shall issue notices to the petitioners under Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023 as and when their presence is required while conducting the investigation.

¶¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Uttarakhand High Court (WPCRL No. 784 of 2026, Rakesh Thapliyal, J., decided 05.05.2026). The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 0121 of 2026 dated 22.04.2026, Police Station I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar, for offences under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 318(4), 351(3) and 352 read with Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, contending the deceased died of cardiac arrest yet Section 103(1) BNS was invoked. The S.H.O. was directed to remain present; the learned AGA thereafter reported that after the post-mortem report, Sections 103(1), 318(4) and 61 stood deleted, leaving only provisions punishable with less than / up to seven years. The State did not dispute that the Investigating Officer must follow the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and issue notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, 2023. The writ petition was disposed of with corresponding directions; the co-accused Varun Kumar Sharma's WPCRL No. 764 of 2026 had earlier been disposed of similarly on 02.05.2026.

¶1

2026:UHC:3385

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPCRL No. 784 of 2026 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Ravindra S.Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned A.G.A for the State. 3. The petitioner Jitendra Chawla is praying for quashing of the First Information Report dated 22.04.2026 bearing FIR No. 0121 of 2026 Police Station I.T.I. District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein the petitioner along with Jitendra Chawla have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 318 (4) , 351(3) and 352 read with section 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased died due to cardiac arrest and despite this FIR has been lodged under the penal provision of Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023. On such submission the S.H.O. was directed to be remain present in Court why the FIR has been registered for the offence punishable under section 103(1) of BNS, 2023. 5. Mrs. Meenakshi Sharma, the learned AGA on instructions from the S.H.O. apprise to this Court that after getting the post mortem report of the deceased Section 103 (1), 318(4) and 61 have already been deleted and the investigation is going against the remaining penal provision. She further submits that now all the penal provisions in which the investigation is going on, are punishable for less than seven years, therefore, the concerned I.O. is under legal obligation to follow the guidelines as formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of**Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273**while conducting the investigation. 6. It is argued bythe learned counsel for the

¶3

2026:UHC:3385

¶4

petitioner that now the offences, in which petitioners have been implicated is punishable with the maximum sentence of upto 7 years and as such, the Investigating Officer is under the legal obligation to follow the guidelines as formulated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 while conducting investigation. He further submits that co-accused Varun Kumar Sharma has also filed WPCRL No. 764 of 2026 before this Court, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 02.05.2026 in the light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar, therefore, present petition may also be disposed of in terms of judgment of Arnesh Kumar (supra). 7. On the other side, learned State Counsel have not disputed that all the offences are punishable with the maximum sentence of upto 7 years, therefore, the I.O. is under legal obligation to issue notice under Section 35 (3) BNSS, 2023 while conducting the investigation and to follow the guidelines as formulated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 . 8. In view of the submission as above, present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Investigating Officer to follow the guidelines as formulated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and issue notices to the petitioners under Section 35 (3) BNSS, 2023, as and when their presence are required, while conducting the investigation. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 05.05.2026 SKS/Nahid

Jitendra Chawla v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Chawla v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Similar cases

Rizwana Vs State of Uttarakhand

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Saniya Vs State of Uttarakhand

Alim Vs State of Uttarakhand

Tanishk Bora Vs State of Uttarakhand

Tanveer and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand