Haridas Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3338 UK

      HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petitioon No.1882 of 2022


Haridas Singh                                          ....Petitioner

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                      ....Respondents

Present:-
             Mr. P.C. Petshali and Mr. Yogesh Upadhyay, Advocates for
the petitioner.
             Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. for the State.
             Mr. Kurban Ali, Advocate for the respondent no.3.

                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No.616

of 2022, dated 29.09.2022, under Sections 420, 504 and 506

IPC , Police Station Kashipur, District- Udham Singh Nagar

with related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The FIR, in the instant case, has been lodged by

the respondent no.3. According to it, the petitioner

approached the informant, assured him that he may secure

job to him through one of his friends, who is co-accused. It is

the petitioner, who took the informant to the co-accused.

Money was transferred. Some of the amount, according to the

FIR, was also given to the petitioner (Para-5). It speaks that

Rs. 4,00,000/- were given to the petitioner on 07.03.2019.

The FIR is quite in detail.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner only introduced the informant to the co-

accused; his role is that of an introducer; the offences are

punishable for imprisonment less than 7 years; the case is

covered by the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs.

State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

6. Criminal antecedents of the petitioner were

called by the State. Learned State Counsel would submit that

the petitioner has criminal history of cases of similar nature.

7. This is a petitioner under Section 226 of the

Constitution of India. Under rare and exceptional

circumstances, interference in this jurisdiction can be made.

If an FIR discloses commission of offences, interference is

generally not warranted.

8. A bare perusal of the FIR in the instant case

gives specifics as to how the informant was cheated; as to

how the petitioner induced him to deliver money. The FIR

discloses commission of offences. There is no reason to make

any interference. The petition deserves to be dismissed at the

stage of admission itself.

9. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 15.10.2022 Ravi Bisht