Allowed

Naeem Ahmad v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC1 Dec 2022WPCRL/1391/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed a writ petition and quashed the impugned FIR, holding that the basis for registration was quashed. However, liberty was granted to the State Department to initiate fresh legal action based on newly discovered forgery in the petitioner's caste certificate.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 177 of 2018 quashed; liberty to the Department to take legal action based on new facts.

Naeem Ahmad Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others — Corruption | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1391 of 2018

¶3

Naeem Ahmad ...Petitioner

¶4

Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ...Respondents

¶5

Present:-

¶6

Mr. Yogesh Pant, Advocate holding brief of Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, Advocae for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶8

The petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No. 177 of 2018, dated 18.07.2018, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by an order dated 26.06.2018 of the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, the FIR in-question was lodged, but the order dated 26.06.2018, passed by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar has been quashed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2030 of 2018, but in that order, this Court had left it open to the department to inquire the matter afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the order dated 26.06.2018 of the District Magistrate,

¶11

¶12

Udham Singh Nagar has been quashed, which was basis of the FIR, the FIR does not survive.

¶13

Learned State counsel fairly concedes that the order dated 26.06.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar has already been quashed, therefore, the FIR in question cannot survive. But he would submit that in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2030 of 2018, this Court had given liberty to the department to inquire the matter afresh. The department conducted a fresh enquiry and found that the caste certificate of the petitioner is forged. Therefore, a liberty should be given to the State to take such legal action as is permissible under the law.

¶14

The writ petition is allowed. The FIR in question is quashed. However, based on new facts, the department is at liberty to take such legal action against the petitioner, as is permissible under the law.

¶15

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 01.12.2022

¶16

Jitendra

Naeem Ahmad v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naeem Ahmad v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Munni Devi Vs Satyapal

Jeewan Lal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Bijendra Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sanjeev Malik Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajesh Gangwar Vs State of Uttarakhand