Supreme Court: Abhishek Upadhyay Challenges Ghaziabad FIR, Seeks Quashing

• Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay has petitioned the Supreme Court to quash an FIR filed against him in Ghaziabad, alleging it is fabricated retaliation for his investigative reporting.
• The FIR, related to an alleged road-rage incident, invokes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, SC/ST Act, and IT Act, with Upadhyay noting discrepancies in its recording.
• The Supreme Court, led by CJI Surya Kant, has agreed to hear Upadhyay's Article 32 plea, which also seeks protection from arrest and an independent investigation.
• Upadhyay claims police misconduct, including a late-night visit to his home without prior notice and pressuring local establishments regarding CCTV footage.
• He seeks an investigation by an agency other than the Uttar Pradesh police, such as the Delhi Police or CBI, for this and other related FIRs.

Upadhyay maintains that the entire incident was staged to target him directly because of his ongoing investigative reporting into alleged corruption and irregularities within Uttar Pradesh.

Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay has directly approached the Supreme Court, seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him in Ghaziabad and requesting protection from arrest. His petition also calls for an independent investigation into the matter, asserting that the case is a retaliatory fabrication linked to his investigative reporting activities.

The FIR, numbered 678/2026, was lodged on August 18 at the Indirapuram Police Station in Ghaziabad, stemming from an alleged road-rage incident near Shipra Mall. Complainant Nikki Gautam claims his motorcycle was struck from behind by a Baleno, and the driver, identified as Abhishek Upadhyay, subsequently engaged in abusive and threatening behavior. However, Upadhyay categorically denies these allegations, maintaining that the entire incident was staged to target him directly because of his ongoing investigative reporting into alleged corruption and irregularities within Uttar Pradesh.

Upadhyay, who operates the independent news portal “Top Secret,” has specifically highlighted that the FIR emerged shortly after he published reports concerning alleged corruption, including issues related to the Ram Janmabhoomi premises and the conduct of senior government officials. He further alleges that the motorcycle registration number cited in the complaint does not correspond with the vehicle described by the complainant and does not belong to Gautam, casting doubt on the veracity of the initial complaint.

The Supreme Court, under a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, has agreed to hear Abhishek Upadhyay's plea, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, which seeks the quashing of the Ghaziabad FIR and protection from arrest. Upadhyay's decision to approach the apex court directly stems from an expressed apprehension of arrest and a fear of potential physical harm should he attempt to seek recourse through the Allahabad High Court.

The FIR in question invokes provisions from several significant statutes, including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Information Technology Act. Notably, Upadhyay's Article 32 petition journalist also points out alleged discrepancies between the sections reflected in different portions of the FIR record itself, raising questions about its procedural integrity. This Abhishek Upadhyay Ghaziabad FIR challenge is a critical test of the Supreme Court's stance on quashing FIRs, especially when allegations of retaliatory action against investigative journalism are raised.

Upadhyay's legal challenge highlights his willingness to cooperate with any investigation but requests a directive for the probe, including any other FIRs potentially arising from his reporting on the Ram Janmabhoomi donation issue, to be conducted by an agency other than the Uttar Pradesh police, such as the Delhi Police or the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The journalist's petition details concerning police conduct, including an incident on August 20 when a team of approximately a dozen police personnel reportedly arrived at his Ghaziabad residence around 10:30 pm. Upadhyay was not home at the time, but his wife and two daughters were present. He alleges that the police entered the premises without prior notice, causing panic, and subsequently informed him of their intention to take him into custody in connection with the FIR.

Furthermore, Upadhyay claims he was not initially provided with a complete copy of the FIR despite his requests. An application was later filed seeking the supply of the FIR and information regarding the release of the vehicle involved, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in *Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India*. This precedent underscores the right to access such documents, a key aspect of procedural fairness.

Beyond the alleged police raid, Upadhyay's petition also includes allegations that police personnel pressured establishments near the alleged road-rage incident site to delete or withhold CCTV footage. These claims, if substantiated, would further support his assertion that the Ghaziabad road-rage case FIR is part of a broader effort to target him due to his reporting, making the call for an independent investigation by an external agency paramount.

This case is a critical watch for criminal defense lawyers and those advising journalists, as it tests the Supreme Court's stance on quashing FIRs under Article 32, particularly when allegations of retaliatory action against investigative reporting are raised. It offers insight into the procedural avenues for seeking protection from arrest and challenging the alleged misuse of criminal statutes like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law