Supreme Court: Abhishek Upadhyay Seeks Ghaziabad FIR Quashing, Protection

• Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay has petitioned the Supreme Court to quash an FIR registered against him in Ghaziabad and to secure protection from arrest.
• Upadhyay alleges the FIR, which involves an alleged road-rage incident and invokes the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, was fabricated in retaliation for his investigative reporting on corruption in Uttar Pradesh.
• His petition highlights alleged police misconduct, including pressuring for CCTV footage deletion and an unannounced raid on his residence.
• Upadhyay seeks an independent investigation by an agency other than the Uttar Pradesh Police, citing fears of physical harm if he were to approach the Allahabad High Court.

The journalist has expressed apprehension of arrest and alleged that he may face physical harm if he approaches the Allahabad High Court, prompting his direct appeal to the Supreme Court for the FIR's quashing.

Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay has directly approached the Supreme Court, seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against him in Ghaziabad and protection from arrest. Upadhyay, who operates the independent news portal “Top Secret,” contends that the case is a retaliatory measure stemming from his investigative reporting on alleged irregularities within Uttar Pradesh.

The FIR, identified as No. 678/2026, was lodged at the Indirapuram Police Station in Ghaziabad on August 18. It pertains to an alleged road-rage incident that reportedly occurred near Shipra Mall. The complainant, Nikki Gautam, claims his motorcycle was struck from behind by a Baleno, and the driver subsequently verbally abused and threatened him, identifying Abhishek Upadhyay as the vehicle's owner.

Upadhyay, however, has vehemently denied these allegations, asserting that the entire incident was orchestrated to target him due to his journalistic work. He further points out that the motorcycle registration number cited in the complaint does not match the vehicle described by the complainant and does not belong to Gautam. The petition also includes allegations that police personnel pressured local establishments near the incident site to either delete or withhold CCTV footage, though these claims have not been independently verified.

Further compounding his concerns, Upadhyay's petition details an incident on August 20, when a police team of approximately a dozen officers arrived at his Ghaziabad residence around 10:30 pm while he was absent. His wife and two daughters were present during the alleged entry without prior notice, which reportedly caused panic. The police subsequently informed Upadhyay of their intent to take him into custody in connection with the FIR, and he claims he was not initially provided with a complete copy of the FIR despite his requests.

The journalist's petition to the Supreme Court represents a direct challenge under Article 32 of the Constitution, a recourse often sought when fundamental rights are believed to be violated. Upadhyay's plea for the `Abhishek Upadhyay Ghaziabad FIR quashing SC` argues that the charges are fabricated, directly linking the FIR to his `Investigative reporting retaliation India` concerning alleged corruption and irregularities in Uttar Pradesh, including matters related to the Ram Janmabhoomi premises and senior government officials.

The FIR itself invokes several significant statutes, including provisions of the `Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita road-rage FIR`, 2023, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Information Technology Act. Notably, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, came into effect on July 1, 2024, replacing the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and is currently in force. The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Information Technology Act, 2000, are also currently in force. Notably, the petition highlights alleged discrepancies within the FIR record, specifically regarding the sections of law reflected in different parts of the document. This `Supreme Court Article 32 FIR challenge` underscores the procedural and substantive issues Upadhyay is raising.

In his legal strategy, Upadhyay's petition also references the Supreme Court's judgment in `Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India` when seeking the supply of the FIR copy and information concerning the release of the vehicle involved. This demonstrates a strategic use of established legal precedents to assert his rights in the face of what he describes as a targeted prosecution.

A central component of Upadhyay's petition is his apprehension of arrest and the assertion that he could face physical harm if compelled to approach the Allahabad High Court. This fear has driven his decision to bypass the High Court and directly seek the quashing of the FIR from the Supreme Court, emphasizing the urgency and perceived high stakes of his situation.

As an alternative to quashing the FIR, the `Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay protection from arrest` plea indicates his willingness to cooperate with an investigation. However, he has requested a specific directive: that the current FIR, along with any other FIRs allegedly arising from his reporting on the Ram Janmabhoomi donation issue, be investigated by an independent agency such as the Delhi Police or the CBI, rather than the Uttar Pradesh Police. This request underscores his lack of trust in the impartiality of local law enforcement given his allegations of retaliation.

This case illustrates the direct recourse available to individuals, particularly journalists, to the Supreme Court under Article 32 for quashing FIRs and seeking protection from arrest, especially when alleging mala fide intent or procedural irregularities by law enforcement. Lawyers should note the strategic use of direct SC intervention in cases of alleged retaliatory prosecution and the potential for challenging the application of new statutes like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law