Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/290/2025 on 16 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL. No Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS Registrar's order with Signatures WPCRL No.290 of 2025 Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is
present.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA and Ms. Sweta Badola
Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State are present.
3. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has put to
challenge the FIR No.422 of 2024 dated 10.10.2024, under
Sections 420, 467, 468 and 506 IPC registered with Police
Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
4. When the matter was listed as fresh, it was the contention
of learned counsel for the petitioner that his client has been
falsely implicated in the present case and he has no connection
with the allegations made in the FIR.
5. This Court vide order dated 07.04.2025 protected the
interest of the petitioner by directing not to take any coercive
measure against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR,
and at the same time, directed the State Counsel to seek clear
instructions in the matter.
6. Today, learned State Counsel has supplied to the Court,
the instructions dated 08.04.2025 which are taken on record. On
the basis of those instructions, it is submitted by learned State
counsel that the co-accused, namely, Satvinder Singh transferred
the amounts of Rs.7,00,000/-, Rs.75,000/- and Rs.50,000/-
respectively in the account of the petitioner through National
Electronics Fund Transfer (NEFT), which was allegedly given to
Satvinder Singh by the informant/complainant. He also submits
that as many as twelve cases of similar nature have already been
registered against the petitioner. He further informed the Court
that for ensuring the petitioner’s appearance, proceedings under
2
Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. have also been initiated.
7. Having considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned FIR as
well as considering the previous track record of petitioner which
shows that 12 cases of similar nature are pending investigation
against him, this Court is of the view that no interference is
warranted in the present case.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in-limine.
9. Interim order dated 07.04.2025 stands vacated.
10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
16.04.2025
AK