Uttarakhand HC rejects plea by minister Rekha Arya’s husband to quash FIR

The High Court’s decision means the FIR will remain in force and the criminal case can continue. Sahu, also known as Pappu Girdhari, had asked the court to end the case at the preliminary stage. He is the husband of cabinet minister Rekha Arya.

Arya’s FIR alleges concealment of a previous marriage, relationships with other women, physical assault, verbal abuse, caste-based remarks, forged signatures and a possible plot to kill her. The FIR includes IPC provisions for conspiracy, hurt, cheating, forgery, concealing a former marriage, cruelty, insult and intimidation, along with relevant SC/ST Act provisions.

The court did not decide whether these allegations are true. It held that disputed audio recordings and documents must be examined through the proper legal process. The ruling allows the investigation and later proceedings to continue, while Sahu remains entitled to contest the allegations.

Generally, an FIR, or First Information Report, is a police record made after receiving information about an alleged cognisable offence. It sets the criminal investigation in motion. In this case, the FIR was registered at Cantt police station in Dehradun after Rekha Arya accused Sahu of several offences.

To quash an FIR means to use the court’s legal power to cancel it and stop the criminal proceedings based on it. Sahu argued that the dispute was essentially domestic and that the allegations had been given a criminal colour. The state and Arya’s legal representative opposed that request.

The High Court declined to quash the FIR because the allegations, if taken at face value, involved serious offences. It also said disputed evidence could not be finally tested at this stage. The investigation and possible trial must therefore follow the ordinary legal process.

The FIR names ten specifically numbered IPC offence provisions. They are sections 120-B, 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 495, 498-A, 504 and 506. It also invokes relevant provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, so the full complaint covers more than the ten numbered IPC entries.

The allegations include criminal conspiracy, voluntarily causing hurt, cheating, several forgery offences, concealing a former marriage, cruelty by a husband, intentional insult and criminal intimidation. The complaint also refers to caste-based derogatory remarks, forged administrative documents and alleged audio discussions about a plot to kill Arya.

The article gives the alleged period as July 2004 to October 2026. That range includes the couple’s stated marriage date, July 6, 2004, and extends to October 2026. The court has not ruled that any offence occurred. Those claims remain subject to investigation and legal determination.

The court rejected the idea that the case could be treated only as a matrimonial dispute because the FIR alleges multiple forms of criminal conduct. Justice Alok Mahra said the allegations prima facie disclosed serious cognisable offences. That means the complaint, if accepted at this stage, described conduct serious enough for criminal investigation.

Arya alleged that Sahu hid a previous marriage and children, maintained relationships with other women, assaulted and abused her, and made caste-based derogatory remarks. She also alleged forged signatures on company documents and referred to recordings about a plan to kill her, including financial transactions connected with it.

The court stressed that a long marriage does not rule out later cruelty or criminal conduct. Sahu’s counsel argued that the couple had been married since July 6, 2004, but the court said that duration alone could not settle the allegations. Their truth must be tested through investigation and legal proceedings.

“Prima facie” means based on the initial material or first appearance, not after a full trial. A cognisable offence is generally one for which police may begin an investigation under criminal law. Thus, the court was saying that the FIR’s allegations were sufficiently serious and specific to justify continuing the case.

The complaint alleges conspiracy, physical hurt, cheating, forgery, concealment of a former marriage, cruelty, insult and criminal intimidation. It also refers to caste-based remarks, disputed documents and audio recordings allegedly connected to a plot to kill Arya. These allegations were not treated as a simple domestic disagreement.

The phrase does not establish guilt. The court expressly said that the authenticity of the recordings and documents required examination during proper proceedings. Its ruling only rejected Sahu’s attempt to end the FIR immediately. The allegations remain subject to investigation, evidence and determination through the legal process.

A petition to quash an FIR is decided at an early stage. The court examines whether the allegations, assumed provisionally to be true, disclose a legal basis for investigation. It does not normally decide contested facts or determine whether evidence is genuine. The High Court cited the Supreme Court’s Bhajan Lal and Niharika Infrastructure precedents.

Here, Sahu disputed the allegations and claimed that the audio recordings were generated using artificial intelligence. Arya relied on the recordings and alleged that Sahu forged her signatures on administrative documents. The court said the authenticity of both forms of evidence required examination during appropriate trial proceedings.

The judge therefore refused to conduct what the ruling called a “mini-trial” under the court’s quashing jurisdiction. This approach preserves the investigation and allows evidence to be collected and tested later. It does not validate Arya’s allegations or reject Sahu’s defence; those issues remain unresolved.

When a court refuses to quash an FIR, the criminal case is not terminated at that preliminary stage. The police investigation can continue, subject to the law and later court orders. The article also notes that the state argued Sahu had not cooperated with the ongoing investigation.

The allegations can then be examined through evidence, including the disputed audio recordings and documents. The court said those materials require proper examination and that their authenticity could not be conclusively decided while considering the quashing petition. The legal process, rather than the preliminary ruling, must determine what happened.

The refusal does not establish that Sahu committed any offence. The High Court expressly said the allegations remained subject to determination through the legal process. Sahu has denied all allegations, while Arya has made the complaint. The next outcome depends on investigation and subsequent proceedings, not on this dismissal alone.