Dismissed¶¶4

Sangat Singh Saini v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC11 Feb 2025WPCRL/1101/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refusal to quash FIR under Article 226; parameters of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 applied/relied upon; FIR no. 315/2013 PS Kotwali District Dehradun renumbered FIR no. 162/2013 PS Doiwala District Dehradun; CBCID Sector Dehradun investigation; offences under IPC Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, 120B; allegations specific, guilt triable only at trial; WPCRL No. 1101 of 2021 dismissed by Uttarakhand High Court (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) on 11.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Allegations made against the petitioner in the impugned FIR are specific; whether they are correct can only be adjudicated during trial, and this Court cannot go into the question whether the petitioner is guilty or not. ¶¶2

Sangat Singh Saini Vs State of Uttarakhand — Cheating and Forgery | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:695

¶2

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. 1101 of 2021 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
			1. There is no representation for the petitioner.
			2. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.
			3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) To, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing of the FIR bearing FIR no. 315/2013 PS Kotwali District Dehradun lodged by the respondent no. 5 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, 120B of IPC, which has been renumbered as FIR no. 162/2013 of PS Doiwala District Dehradun and the same is under investigation of CBCID Sector Dehradun (Annexure no. 1 to this writ 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 allegations made against the petitioner are specific.
			5. Whether the allegations are correct or not can only be adjudicated during trial. This Court cannot go into the question, whether petitioners are guilty or not. 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.

¶3

2025:UHC:695

¶4

6. no imp extr the	In such view of the matter, there is scope for interference with the ugned FIR while exercising aordinary power under Article 226 of Constitution.
7. and	Accordingly, the writ petition fails is dismissed.
Aswal	(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 11.02.2025

Sangat Singh Saini v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangat Singh Saini v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Vs Shri Sobat

In Re in the Matter of Parole of Shyam Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kalpana Vs Devendra Singh

Vijay Bhushan Garg Vs State of Uttarkahand

Istakar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Manoj Kumar Agarwal Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Cooperative