Uttarakhand High Court
7 May vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 7 May, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:3564
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 433 of 2025
07 May, 2025
Badri Dutt Joshi & others
--Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, learned counsel for the petitioners,
appeared through V.C.
Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of the present writ petition, petitioners
have put to challenge the FIR No.0198 of 2024 dated
15.04.2024, under Sections 406 & 420 IPC, registered at
Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar.
2. Facts in nutshell are that respondent no.3
lodged the first information report with the allegations that
petitioners are associated with a land mafia operating in
the Haridwar District. It is alleged in the FIR that in the
year 2007-2008, respondent no.3’s company was actively
engaged in housing development project within the
Haridwar District. Respondent no.3entered into discussions
with several land brokers, one of whom was the petitioners,
who offered a piece of land located in Village Rahematpur
at rates acceptable to the shareholders and directors. A
formal agreement was established in which the petitioner
1
2025:UHC:3564
no.1 acted as an intermediary on behalf of respondent
no.3’s company and upon registration of the land in his
name, petitioner no.1 was to transfer the land to the
company at the mutually agreed terms. It is further alleged
in the FIR that respondent no.3’s company provided
necessary funds to pay the landowners and disbursed Rs.5
crores to the farmers, out of which Rs.1 crore in cash to the
petitioner nos.1 & 2 and Rs.50 lakhs in cash to petitioner
nos.3 & 4 for the purpose of purchasing the land and
transferring the ownership to the respondent no.3’s
company. In the year 2010, respondent no.3 requested that
the land be officially registered in the company’s name then
the petitioner no.1 continuously postponed the registration
citing various reasons and as a result, the company
requested to refund of Rs.6.5 crores. But, the same was not
done. It is also alleged in the FIR that without actual
possession of the land and consent of the company,
petitioner received a compensation of Rs.89 lakhs and
managed to abscond. With the aforesaid allegations, the
first information report has been lodged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the present case is purely a civil dispute and just to create
pressure upon the petitioners, present FIR has been
lodged. He further submits that since the land in-question
was acquired by the NHAI and after verifying the title deeds
and records of the land, the compensation was rightly paid
to the petitioners, therefore, there is no iota of substance in
the allegations alleged in the FIR. He also submits that the
petitioner no.1 used to work in the company of respondent
no.3 and since he left the company and was managing his
own property, respondent no.3 has lodged the instant FIR
purely as revenge, vendetta and vengeance against
petitioner no.1 and his family members. It has also been
argued that the FIR is lodged in counter blast of the
2
2025:UHC:3564
complaint made by the petitioner no.1 on 09.06.2023.
4. This Court is not impressed by the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
Since the offences are very serious against the petitioners
and the first information report discloses commission of
cognizable offence, therefore, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the impugned FIR by exercising
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed in limine.
5. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.05.2025
AK
3
[ad_1]
Source link