Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR alleging offences including caste atrocities, claiming false implication. The court, relying on Supreme Court parameters for exercise of writ powers in such matters, held there was no scope for interference with the FIR and dismissed the petition.
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:8965
| 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. 182 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. Petitioners have sought quashing of F.I.R. No. 037 of 2021, registered against him for offence punishable under Sections 186, 323, 332, 353, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(d) of Prevention of Atrocities on Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act (Amendment 2015) in Police Station Banbhulpura, District Nainital. He has also sought a direction to the Police Authorities not to arrest him, pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. 4. Petitioner contends that allegations made in the FIR are not correct and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. |
|||
| 5. Learned State Counsel submits that during the course of investigation, witnesses have stated that accused persons used casteist words against the complainant. He further submits that in a writ petition, this Court cannot adjudicate whether the allegations are correct or not and it can only be decided in a trial. |
|||
| 6. This Court finds substance in the said submission. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/ s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of |
2024:UHC:8965
| Maharashtra & others, reported in AIR |
|---|
| 2021 SC 1918, have laid down |
| parameters for exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution, in such matters. |
| 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=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477 005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C 2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531 726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2024.12.03 19:11:27 +05'30' |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash an FIR under Article 226 when allegations of casteist abuse are disputed but unadjudicated.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & othersRelied on¶6
AIR 2021 SC 1918 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Petitioners
State of Uttarakhand
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
