Sagar Panwar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 307 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
          Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2023


Sagar Panwar
                                                     ..... Petitioner
                                Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others
                                                  .....Respondents

Mr. Subhash Chand Burman, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.



                          JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the

FIR No. 1698 of 2022 dated 30.12.2022, under Section

376(2)(n), 420 and 506 of IPC, registered at Police

Station Manglaur, District Haridwar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to FIR, the petitioner and the

informant met on 26.08.2022. The petitioner assured

the informant of a job and demanded Rs. 35,000/-. The

informant paid this amount. According to FIR, the

informant was not offered any job, instead the

petitioner repeatedly raped the informant on multiple

occasions at various places.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner and the informant both have

entered into a compromise. The informant has accepted

that at the behest of some villagers, she lodged the FIR.

She has also accepted that she received

Rs.35,000/- from the petitioner.

5. It is a petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. In case, FIR discloses

commission of offences, generally no interference is

warranted. The FIR in the instant case, reveals serious

offences of rape etc. In such cases, compromise cannot

be a ground to quash an F.I.R. The question perhaps

that would require to be answered during investigation

is as to whether the petitioner tried to tamper with the

evidence and have approached the informant with

some motives.

6. As stated, the FIR in the instant cases

discloses commission of heinous offences under the

false assurance of providing job to the informant. Not

only this, the FIR records that the petitioner had taken

Rs. 35,000/- from the informant. The truthfulness,

credibility or reliability of the contents of the FIR will be

examined during investigation. Therefore, this petition

deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission

itself.

7. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) Vacation Judge 20.01.2023

Akash