Anil Negi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2769 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.1329 of 2023
Anil Negi                                              ....Petitioner

                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                      ....Respondents

Present:-
             Mr. Vinod Nand Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
             Mr. V.S. Rawat, Brief Holder for the State.


                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner Anil Negi seeks quashing of FIR

No.01 of 2023, under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, Police

Station Aswal Syun, District Pauri Garhwal, with related

reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. The FIR has been lodged by the respondent

no.7, the informant, who is the Principal in Upper Middle

School Kotagarh Tehsil Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal ("the

school"). According to the FIR, the petitioner was the Manager

of the school. He was appointed on 29.02.2020. As per rules,

his tenure expired on 28.02.2023, but the FIR states that the

petitioner, in collusion with co-accused Maniklal, a clerk in

the school, manipulated the record, particularly, charged

documents and by erasing the earlier figures, made it to

reflect as if the tenure of the petitioner would expire on

20.09.2023. The FIR further records as to why it has been

done. According to the FIR, it has been so done by the

petitioner so as to validate the Bank draft.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that it is a false FIR. Earlier, a writ petition was filed with

regard to the management of the school. It is registered as

WPPIL No.55 of 2023, Balwant Singh Negi Vs. State and

Others, but it was rejected on 17.04.2023 on the ground that

the petitioner, in that case, had no locus standi.

5. Learned counsel would also submit that the

informant has nothing to do with the management activities.

She has never attended any meeting of the management

committee. Reference has been made to the resolution of the

management committee dated 25.08.2022, i.e. Annexure No.2

to the writ petition, to argue that the informant is not a

member of it.

6. 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.

7. The informant is the Principal of the school. She

reports that there have been manipulation in the school

records. The allegations are specific as to what is the forgery

that has been committed. Not only this, the FIR records as to

how it was done by the petitioner. As stated, according to the

FIR, the petitioner has done it in collusion with one clerk of

the school, who is co-accused Maniklal. The intend and

purpose of doing such forgery has also been stated in the FIR,

i.e. to validate the bank drafts. The FIR definitely discloses

commission of offence. What is the truthfulness and

credibility, it would fall for scrutiny during investigation or

trial, as the case may be. 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.) 20.09.2023 Ravi Bisht