Dismissed

Sajid v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary (Home) Affairs Dehradun

Uttarakhand HC7 Jul 2022WPCRL/921/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR where the petitioner was not named as an accused. The Judge held the prayer was improper as the petitioner could only challenge investigation inclusion, noting the case involves a vehicle theft conspiracy requiring investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing the FIR without the petitioner named as accused is dismissed.

Sajid Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary (Home)… — Quashing and FIR | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPCRL No. 921 of 2022 Hon’ble Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J. Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, in this case, has prayed for quashing the FIR No. 0341 of 2021 dated 19.12.2021 for commission of offence under Sections 420, 504 and 506, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of Indian Penal Code, was registered at P.S. Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar and not to take any coercive action against him including arrest. Firstly, the prayer of the petitioner in this case, is improper. The FIR, which he seeks to quash, does not contain his name as an accused. However, the petitioner can challenge inclusion of his name in the investigation of the case. Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State would submit that investigation shows that a larger conspiracy is hatched, in which a group of individuals is stealing vehicles and then remodeling or renovating it and selling it to other persons. It is apparent on the face of the record and from the instructions received by Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. that the case needs to be investigated. Keeping in view of the aforesaid consideration and the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp(1) SCC 335”, “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866” and “M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.

¶2

Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2021) SCC Online SC 315”, does not fall within the ambit of the consideration, as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, this Court finds no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Urgent certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, as per Rules.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) 07.07.2022 A/-

Sajid v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary (Home) Affairs Dehradun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary (Home) Affairs Dehradun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binod Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

State of Uttarakhand through Collector Vs Sri Jawahar Lal

Puran Chandra Tiwari Vs State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary

Godhan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand through Chief Secretary

Pramila Vs District Magistrate Haridwar

Apurva Acharya Vs Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority