Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/636/2023 on 10 May, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPCRL No. 636 of 2023
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder for
the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Ravi Joshi, Advocate for
respondent no. 3.
2. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
3. An FIR has been lodged against
petitioner by respondent no.3 under
Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC in Police
Station Transit Camp, District Udham
Singh Nagar.
4. By means of this writ petition,
petitioner has not only sought quashing
of the aforesaid FIR, which was lodged
on 22.11.2022, but, he has also sought a
writ of mandamus directing respondent
no. 2 not to harass and arrest him in
connection with the said FIR.
5. Learned State Counsel, on
instructions, submits that petitioner has
criminal history as, inasmuch as, two
FIRs were lodged against petitioner,
namely FIR No. 55 of 2022, registered in
Police Station Transit Camp, Udmah
Singh Nagar for offence punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 323, 392, 504 & 506
IPC, in which charge-sheet has been filed
and FIR No. 18 of 2023, registered in
Police Station Bilaspur, District Rampur,
Uttar Pradesh for offence punishable
under Section 147, 328, 342, 406, 420,
506 & 504 IPC and investigation is on in
respect of the said FIR.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner
contends that impugned FIR is a
counterblast to another FIR, registered
by sister of petitioner against respondent
no. 3. It is further contended that
respondent no. 3 is husband of
petitioner's sister and due to matrimonial
discord; impugned FIR has been lodged
against petitioner.
7. Per Contra, learned counsel for
respondent no. 3 points out that
petitioner had impersonated respondent
no. 3 for obtaining loan from Axis Bank,
however, subsequent to filing of
impugned FIR, petitioner repaid the loan.
He, thus contends that merely because
the loan is repaid will not absolve
petitioner of his criminal liability for the
offence he committed. He further
submits that there are number of cases
pending against petitioner in different
police stations, including in State of Uttar
Pradesh.
8. Be that as it may, since allegations
of impersonation and cheating have been
levelled against petitioner and the
contention raised on behalf of petitioner
that impugned FIR is a counterblast,
cannot be considered at this stage, in
view of the law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of M/s
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v.
State of Maharashtra & others; reported
in AIR 2021 SC 1918. None of the
parameters laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335, as reiterated in
subsequent judgments are made out for
quashing the impugned FIR.
9. Thus, there is no scope for
interference in the matter.
10. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
10.05.2023
Navin
