Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 22 April, 2025

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 22 April, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                                   2025:UHC:2889



     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                Writ Petition Criminal No. 1437 of 2024
                                 22nd April, 2025
Rakesh Tomar                                                   .........Petitioner
                                      Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others                            ...........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Prasanna Karnatak, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, D.A.G. for the State.
Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate for respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby petitioner has
put to challenge F.I.R No.0366 of 2024 dated 07.12.2024, under
Sections 386, 505 and 506 of IPC registered with Police Station Vikas
Nagar, District Dehradun.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that an F.I.R. was lodged
against the petitioner with the averments that he is trying to defame
the school being run by respondent no.3 and is trying to breach
harmony between two religious sect i.e., Hindu and Muslim.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a social worker who is being targeted by respondent no.3
on the ground that petitioner is trying to defame the school run by
respondent no.3 through social media and only after protest made by
the petitioner Police took action against respondent no.3 and for that
reason alone he is inimical towards the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the offence
alleged against the petitioner is very serious in nature and there are
seven criminal cases pending against him.

5. I have perused the entire material available on record.

6. Since the offences alleged against the petitioner are very

1
2025:UHC:2889
serious in nature, therefore, this is not a fit case where the Court
should incline to interfere in the matter by invoking its discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Prima facie
a case is made out against the petitioner; therefore, no interference is
warranted by this Court.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
22.04.2025
SK

2