Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The reasoning was based on the efflux of time since the FIR was lodged on December 4, 2025. The Court presumed that the investigation into the case crime number must have been brought to its logical conclusion after a period of one year had expired. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as having been rendered infructuous. The interim order, if any, was vacated. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's allegations regarding malafides or the validity of the FIR itself, as the dismissal was based on procedural obsolescence.

Facts

The petitioner, Shadab Malik, filed a criminal writ petition challenging an FIR dated December 4, 2025, registered under Section 420 IPC at Police Station Pilakhuwa, District Hapur. The FIR arose from the alleged unlawful availment of input tax credit. The petitioner contended that the proceedings were ex-parte, the FIR was actuated by malafides, and was being used to leverage tax adjudication. An interim order dated February 12, 2026, was passed, staying the petitioner's arrest and directing cooperation with the investigation, pending the filing of a counter-affidavit. However, the order sheet indicated that this interim order had not been extended and was no longer in effect. The Court noted that over a year had passed since the FIR was lodged and presumed the investigation had reached its conclusion.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition has become infructuous due to the efflux of time and the likely conclusion of the investigation, rendering the interim protection granted earlier ineffective? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the FIR arose from an unlawful availment of input tax credit, that the proceedings were ex-parte, and that the FIR was actuated by malafides and leveraged to burnish revenue authorities' credentials. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in *Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Vs State of U.P. and others* (2023 SCC Online SC 947), emphasizing the Court's duty to scrutinize FIRs for frivolousness, vexatiousness, or ulterior motives, and to consider overall circumstances beyond mere averments. Revenue/State's Arguments: No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue or State in the provided text, other than the presence of learned AGA for State-respondents.