Uttarakhand High Court
Tarun Chauhan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 25 February, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Hon'ble Justice Sri Rakesh Thapliyal
25th February 2026
Criminal Writ Petition No. 378 of 2026
Tarun Chauhan ............... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others
............Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel with Ms. Suraiya Naaz, learned counsel Counsel for the State: Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. Counsel for the respondent: Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel with Mr. P.K. Chauhan, learned counsel.
(Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
1. The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner Tarun Chauhan, S/o Deepak Chauhan, praying for quashing of impugned FIR dated 28.01.2026, bearing FIR No. 0031 of 2026, registered at P.S. Kankhal District Haridwar lodged by one Amit Kumar, S/o Udesh Singh implicating as many as six persons, namely, Atul Chauhan, S/o Sukhveer Singh, Tarun Chauhan, S/o Deepak, Gaurav Chauhan, S/o Pradeep Kumar, Abhishek Chauhan @ Simmi, S/o Satveer, Abhishek, S/o Trilok Chand and Brahamchari Sudhanand for the offence punishable under Sections 109 of BNS 2023.
2. As per the impugned FIR, the date of incident was 28.01.2026, and as per the learned counsel for the parties the time of incident is about 10:10 am. In respect of the same incident, another FIR was also lodged on 29.01.2026 at 23:25 hrs bearing FIR No. 0033 of 2026 at P.S. Kankhal, District Haridwar by one Deepshikha, W/o Atul Chauhan, implicating as many as 2 six persons, namely, Amit Chauhan, S/o Udesh Chauhan, Sachin Chauhan, S/o Udesh Chauhan, Krishanpal @ Nanu, S/o Sitaram, Shobhit Chauhan, S/o Krishanpal, Sehdev and one unknown person for the offences punishable under Sections115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 351(2) and 351(3) of BNS 2023.
3. It is argued by Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned FIR has been lodged with malafide intent with some ulterior purposes and motive, since, uncle of the petitioner, namely, Atul Chauhan preferred one petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation bearing WPPIL No. 1162 of 2023 questioning the conversion of agricultural land to non- agricultural land and the High Court took very serious note on it and issued directions to the authorities not to proceed with the conversion of agricultural land to non- agricultural land without due process of law, and, subsequently on 05.07.2024, the counsel for Haridwar Development Authority make a statement that the direction given by the previous order dated 04.09.2023 has been complied with in letter and spirit. He further submits that since some of the persons who are in fact the party/ respondent in the PIL were prejudiced and there was threat perception to PIL petitioner Atul Chauhan, consequently he filed a protection petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, i.e. WPCRL No. 1109 of 2024, impleading the State and SSP as party-respondent and the protection writ petition was disposed of finally on 16.10.2024 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned for protection and if petitioner makes 3 such an application to the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police, he will assess the threat perception by constituting a committee and based on the report of the committee, the Senior Superintended of Police concerned shall pass necessary order for or against providing security.
4. It is further argued by Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the FIR the incident, in fact, was happened on 21.08.2026 at about 10:10 am, and on the date of the incident one of the Revenue official make call to the uncle of the petitioner, namely, Atul Chauhan to come on spot where demarcation process is going on, on the complaint of 'Brahamchari Sudhanand' who is by profession is lawyer and on such telephonic call the petitioner's uncle went to the spot along with the petitioner and three-four persons and when they reached there, immediately incident was happened which in fact was highlighted by Deepshika, wife of the Atul Chauhan (aunt of the petitioner) in her FIR dated 29.01.2026 bearing FIR No. 0033 of 2026 at P.S. Kankhal District Haridwar implicated five and one unknown person. In reference to the process of demarcation, one of the notice is also place on record as Annexure 4 issued by Secretary, Haridwar-Roorkee Development Authority dated 17.01.2026 whereby the Tehsildar Haridwar, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer of Haridwar Development Authority and the Kanoongo of Revenue Department were asked to furnish comments within a week which reveals that process for demarcation was initiated on the complaint of Brahamchari Sudhanand.
45. Learned counsel further submits that implicating the petitioner and his uncle and other associates pursuant to the impugned FIR is nothing but a glaring example of malicious implication which is evident from the fact that on the same day, i.e. 28.01.2026 within hour of the incident the uncle of the petitioner Mr. Atul Chauhan surrendered before the police and he also surrendered his licensee pistol and then he was sent in the judicial custody and is now in jail. He further argued that the impugned FIR has been lodged with malafide intent, since, uncle of the petitioner was PIL petitioner, and, as such falls under one of the category as categorized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl. (2) SCC
335. Apart from this, he submits that even from the contents of the FIR no cognizable offence is made out and, as such, impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. He also submits that the licensee pistol of the petitioner be sent for forensic examination in order to find out whether injury was caused by the licensee pistol of the petitioner. In addition to this, certain photographs of the incident has also been enclosed as Annexure 5 and by referring this photographs, Mr. Sharma tried to show that in fact the persons who have been implicated in FIR No. 0033 of 2026, as more aggressor.
6. Per contra, Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the submissions as advanced by Mr. Lalit Sharma and on instructions, submits that in the FIR lodged by aunt of the petitioner no one was injured rather in the impugned FIR there are 5 two injured persons, namely, Sachin and Kishanpal and one of the injured in his statement has stated that he sustained injury due to fire arm caused by the present petitioner, namely, Tarun Chauhan. Learned A.G.A. further submits that from the contents of the FIR, in fact, cognizable offences are made out, and, as such petitioner fails to make out any case for quashing of the FIR.
7. On the other side, Mr. Shobhit Saharia and Mr. P.K. Chauhan, who appears for the complainant advanced their submissions by showing certain photographs copy of which he has also supplied to Mr. Lalit Sharma as well as one of the order passed by the learned Session Judge, rejecting anticipatory bail application of two persons, namely, "Gaurav" and "Abhishek". By placing the order of learned Session Judge, Mr. Saharia give reference of para 20. Apart from this he also play certain audio clips but all these are irrelevant for this Court including the photographs, since, all these photographs and audio clips are part of the investigation and taking cognizance on these photographs and audio clips will at this stage by this Court amount to an interference with the investigation which is wholly impermissible.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant and the Sate submits that there are two injured persons and their medical report are not on record.
9. In the impugned FIR there are as many as six persons has been implicated including petitioner and one of the accused is in judicial custody. So far as FIR No. 6 0033 of 2026 is concerned, five persons including one unknown person have been implicated but no one has been arrested so far. At this juncture this Court wants to know about the past conduct of the persons who have been implicated in both the FIRs and, as such, learned A.G.A. is directed to get instructions positively by 26.02.2026 in respect of criminal history of the accused persons including the petitioner who are named in the impugned FIR as well as of those persons against whom FIR dated 29.01.2026 bearing FIR NO. 0033 of 2026 has been lodged. In addition to this learned A.G.A. shall also place before this Court the injury report of the injured, if any, in both the FIRs as well as the statements.
10. Put up this matter on 26.02.2026 at 2:15 pm. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) Parul