Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing Case Over Gun Threat By Advocate During Bulandshahr Bar Meeting

The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court which had quashed criminal proceedings against an advocate accused of threatening a fellow lawyer with a revolver during a meeting of the District Bar Association, Bulandshahr, holding that the High Court relied on general observations made in earlier election-related proceedings to terminate the criminal case.

A Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan restored the quashing application to the High Court for fresh consideration after observing that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and that the informant was not given an opportunity of hearing before the proceedings were quashed.

The case relates to an incident alleged to have occurred on December 23, 2024, during a meeting of the newly elected Executive Committee of the District Bar Association, Bulandshahr. According to the FIR, the accused advocate entered the Bar Hall with associates, took out his licensed revolver, cocked the weapon, aimed it at the informant (appellant before the SC), and issued threats, creating panic, commotion and an atmosphere of terror. The incident was stated to have been captured on CCTV footage.

Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr.

The High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings on the ground that the incident arose out of rivalry between two factions during the Bar Association elections. It relied on an earlier Division Bench order passed in writ proceedings concerning the same election dispute, where parties had agreed to conduct fresh elections and were expected to withdraw cases filed against each other to end acrimony.

Taking note of this understanding between the parties, the Single Judge of the High Court concluded that since the criminal proceedings were an outcome of the election dispute and parties had undertaken to withdraw proceedings against each other, the ends of justice required that the case be quashed.

Supreme Court's Findings

The Supreme Court observed that the earlier Division Bench order relied upon by the High Court contained only general observations encouraging settlement of disputes and did not specifically relate to the criminal case in question.

The Court held that the undertaking given in the election dispute proceedings could not automatically justify quashing of a criminal case, particularly after investigation had been completed, a charge sheet filed and cognizance taken by the Magistrate.

It further noted that the High Court passed the quashing order without issuing notice to the informant, and therefore the application for quashing required reconsideration after hearing all parties.

The Court criticized the High Court for passing a mechanical order to quash the criminal proceedings, without taking note of the allegations levelled in the charge sheet, and the order taking cognizance by the magistrate.

“While making those observations the High Court had not taken into consideration what the case was, whether those allegations were investigated upon resulting in a charge sheet and taking of cognizance by the concerned Magistrate.”, the court observed.

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, thereby directing the restoration of the Respondent's quashing plea before the file of the High Court to be decided afresh, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant-complainant.

Cause Title: SUMAN KUMAR RAGHAV VERSUS RAVINDRA KUMAR SHARMA & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Narayan Singh, Adv. Mr. Jugul Kishor Gupta, AOR Mr. Vasim Akhter, Adv. Mr. B.r. Meena, Adv. Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Ms. Apurva Singh, Adv. Mr. Aniket Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Kim Rani, Adv.