WPCRL/434/2021
2024 Latest Caselaw 2701 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPCRL/434/2021 on 22 November, 2024

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

2024:UHC:8707 Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS No. and Registrar's order with Signatures WPCRL No.434 of 2021 Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.

There is no representation for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

2. Petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R. No.03 of 2021, under Section 420, 468, 471 & 198 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali Didihat, District Pithoragarh. He has also sought a direction to the Police Authorities not to arrest them, pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R.

3. Learned State Counsel submits that, upon investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner by the Investigating Officer before the Court concerned, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous.

4. This Court is not impressed by the said submission. Since petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R., therefore contents of F.I.R. has to be seen.

5. The impugned F.I.R. is on record as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. From perusal of the F.I.R., it is revealed that petitioner produced a forged certificate of having cleared Uttarakhand T.E.T.-I conducted by Uttarakhand Board of School Education, for securing appointment as Assistant Teacher in a Government Primary School.

6. Whether the allegations made in the 2024:UHC:8707

F.I.R. are correct or not, cannot be examined at this stage. It is matter of trial.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918, has summarized the legal position and has also set out the parameters within which the interference with the F.I.R. can be made by High Court. None of the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, for invoking power under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an FIR, are met in the present case.

8. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference with the impugned FIR while exercising extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.) 22.11.2024 Arpan

ARPAN

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH

2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3 a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,

JAISWAL st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109 CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2024.11.26 10:46:08 +05'30' 2024:UHC:8707