Smt. Bunty @ Smt. Ishita Pathak vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2390 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.1188 of 2023
Smt. Bunty @ Smt. Ishita Pathak                             ....Petitioner

                                 Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                        ....Respondents

Present:-
             Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioners.
             Mr. K.S. Rawal, A.G.A. for the State.


                              JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.103 of

2023, dated 09.07.2023, under Sections 420, 468, 471 and

120-B IPC, Police Station Kathgodam, District Nainital, with

related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It appears that there was a dispute between the

petitioner and the respondent no.3, the informant, who is the

husband of the petitioner. In a proceedings initiated by the

informant, summons were issued to the petitioner. The FIR

records that the online tracking report has revealed that the

notices had already been served on the petitioner, but when

the informant reached in the court, he found that, in fact, the

envelope had been received unserved. The FIR records that,

subsequently, it was revealed that the tracking report was

changed. The summons had already been taken out from the

envelope and it must have been done by the postman and the

petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner has not committed any offence. If any

offence has been committed, it has been committed by the

postal authority. The petitioner is not a beneficiary of any of

such acts.

5. It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of

offence, generally, no interference is warranted unless there

are compelling circumstances to do so.

6. The FIR, in the instant case is quite in detail. It

reveals a story of conspiracy, forgery and manipulation in the

records. What is its truthfulness, it would fall for scrutiny

during investigation or trial, as the case may be. If a notice is

not received to a person, the postal authority may return it

unserved. But, changing the tracking report and returning

that envelope thereafter without the notice in it is a serious

offence.

7. Insofar as the question of beneficiary is

concerned, this Court refrains to make any observation, but,

if notice is not shown to be served on the party, in such

circumstances, cannot it be said that the person, to whom the

notice was served, has manipulated or conspired with the

postal authority? It would also fall for scrutiny during

investigation or trial, as the case may be. The FIR definitely

discloses commission of offences. Therefore, this Court is of

the view that there is no reason to make any interference.

Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage

of admission itself.

8. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 22.08.2023 Ravi Bisht