Smt. Jafran vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 712 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.432 of 2023

Smt. Jafran                                            ....Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                     ....Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. J.S. Virk, D.A.G. for the State.

                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.7 of

2023, dated 17.02.2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471

IPC, Police Station Hindolakhal, District Tehri Garhwal, with

related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the petitioner, with the

help of her husband, who is co-accused, forged documents

and took benefit of Indira Awas Yojna twice. They took Rs.

22,000/- in the year 2001 and Rs. 48,500/- in the year 2011-

12. The FIR records that this benefit could be taken by

beneficiary only once. There are other allegations also in the

FIR, with regard to forgery.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the instant FIR is counterblast to the FIR, which was

filed by the daughter-in-law of the petitioner against the

informant with regard to sale of joint property without

consent of co-sharers. He would also submit that in the FIR

filed by the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, the informant

and others have been granted protection by this Court.

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. In the instant case, there are specific allegations

that the petitioner, with the help of the co-accused, who

happens to be her husband, forged documents and took

benefit of government policy twice. There are other allegations

also in the FIR. The FIR categorically discloses commission of

cognizable offences. Whether the allegations are true or not, it

falls within the domain of investigation. 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.

7. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.03.2023 Ravi Bisht