Police book alleged owner in Noida e-cigarette seizure case under vapes ban law
Noida police registered a case over seized electronic cigarettes and named a man as the alleged owner based on co-accused statements. He sought quashing of the FIR. The Allahabad High Court refused to quash it, noting e-cigarettes were recovered and their transportation is not allowed, so the prosecution continues.
This page records what the cited court records say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →The writ was dismissed on 22 August 2024 and the FIR and investigation continue; no acquittal or conviction was recorded in the order.
What happened
The High Court recorded that the FIR dated 14.06.2024 was registered under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act read with Section 4 of the 2019 vapes Act at Sector 20, Noida, and that two co-accused were arrested on the spot.
The High Court recorded that the petitioner said he was not arrested on the spot, nothing was recovered from him, and he was implicated only because the co-accused named him as owner of the psychotropic substance and electronic cigarettes.
The High Court observed that the incorrect mention of a similarly named Act could not by itself quash the FIR where recovery of electronic cigarettes was asserted at several places.
What the record says
“whereas it has been mentioned at several places that in fact the Electronic Cigarettes were recovered and admittedly transportation of the e-cigarettes itself is not allowed.”
[name withheld] vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others, 2024:AHC:135447-DB, para 5 — read the full text
No complaining victim
The vapes-ban charge criminalises transporting and storing e-cigarettes, an act of possession and trade with no complaining victim.
What we could not confirm
The same FIR also invokes NDPS sections and police alleged cannabis was seized with the vapes; news reports also claim sales to students, but no minor-specific or trafficking charge was filed, so the vapes charge itself was treated as victimless. No 2025 or 2026 Uttar Pradesh vapes case with an official source was found.