The High Court of Uttarakhand, in a single-bench preliminary hearing, dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and issuance of non-arrest directions. The Court held that parameters for quashing an FIR under Article 226 were not met.
Dismissal of writ petition seeking quashing of FIR and non-arrest direction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:UHC:8966
| SL. No. |
Dat e | Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es |
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| WPCRL No. 177 of 2021 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J. |
|||
| 1. There is no representation for the petitioners. |
|||
| 2. Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. |
|||
| 3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: - (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 8.12.2020 registered as Case Crime No. 184 of 2020 under Section 420, 406, 120-B, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Prem Nagar, District Dehradun. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in the Case Crime No. 184 of 2020 under Section 420, 406, 120-B, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Prem Nagar, District Dehradun till the pendency of present petition. 4. The impugned F.I.R. is on record as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/ s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918, have laid down parameters for exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution, in such matters. |
|||
| 6. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the |
2024:UHC:8966
| trial. While exercising power under |
|---|
| Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not expected to embark upon an enquiry into, whether there is reliable evidence or not. It is not a case where FIR does not, disclose any offence. None of the parameters laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, for invoking power under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an FIR, are met in the present case. |
| 7. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference with the impugned FIR while exercising extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. |
| 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. |
| ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J.) 03.12.2024 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08 d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4 610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2024.12.03 19:09:26 +05'30' |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition under Article 226 for quashing the FIR and commanding non-arrest is maintainable given that the quashing parameters are not met.
Whether the Court should interfere with the impugned FIR under the extraordinary power of Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & othersReferred¶5
AIR 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
State of Uttarakhand
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Niti Raj Singh Aswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
