The courtroom was unusually quiet when the bench began dictating the order. At stake was a familiar but tricky question - how far can High Courts go while refusing to quash an FIR? On Thursday, the Supreme Court of India gave a clear answer while hearing appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against protective orders passed by the Allahabad High Court in a case involving alleged forged arms licences.
The matter arose from serious accusations of document fabrication and misuse of firearms licences in Agra. The State argued that the High Court’s directions had tied the hands of the investigators. The apex court agreed.
Background
The case traces back to an STF inquiry triggered by an anonymous complaint. According to the investigation, multiple arms licences were allegedly obtained using forged identity documents and false affidavits. The FIR, registered in May 2025, invoked cheating, forgery-related offences under the IPC, along with provisions of the Arms Act.
Three accused persons - including a retired arms clerk from the district administration - approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. While the High Court refused to quash the case, it still ordered that the investigation be completed within 90 days and directed that the accused should not be arrested until a court took cognisance.
These orders relied heavily on an earlier Allahabad High Court ruling in Shobhit Nehra, where similar interim protection had been granted. The State of U.P. challenged this approach before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
Justice Sanjay Karol, speaking for the bench, made it clear that criminal investigations are rarely straight-line affairs. Witnesses backtrack, documents fail scrutiny, and courts often step in mid-way. “The investigative process is full of twists and recalibrations,” the bench observed, cautioning against unrealistic timelines imposed at the threshold.
At the same time, the court stressed that time-bound investigations cannot be issued mechanically. Such directions, it said, are meant for cases where there is clear stagnation or unexplained delay. “Timelines are imposed reactively, not prophylactically,” the bench remarked.
On arrest protection, the court was firmer. Relying on its earlier ruling in Neeharika Infrastructure, the bench noted that granting a “no arrest” order while refusing to quash an FIR is legally unsustainable. “Such directions,” the court said, “amount to anticipatory bail without satisfying the statutory conditions.”
The judges also faulted the High Court for applying Shobhit Nehra without examining whether the facts matched. Precedents, the bench reminded, are not to be applied blindly but in context.
Decision
Allowing the State’s appeals, the Supreme Court set aside both the 90-day investigation deadline and the protection from arrest granted by the High Court. The bench ordered that interim protection already in place would continue only for two weeks, after which “all actions permissible in law” may follow.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs Mohd. Arshad Khan & Ors. (Arms Licence Forgery Case)
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 5610–5612 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 17272, 17579 & 18150 of 2025)
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (Challenge to High Court’s interim protection from arrest and investigation timeline)
Decision Date: December 19, 2025