Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1306/2025 on 5 August, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes,
SL. Date reports,
No. orders or COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
proceedings
or directions
and
Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1 No. 1304 of 2025
With
BA1 No. 1306 of 2025
BA1 No. 968 of 2025
BA1 No. 971 of 2025
BA1 No. 1308 of 2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Sharang Dhulia, learned counsel
(through V.C.) and Mr. Chirag Goswami,
learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl.
Advocate General with Mr. Deepak
Bhardwaj, learned Brief Holder for the
State.
3. In compliance to the previous order
S.S.P. Haridwar and the Head of the
S.I.T. joined the proceeding through
V.C., and on interaction what they have
apprised to this Court that a complaint
was made in the C.M. Portal and on this
complaint the FIR has been registered.
They also apprise to this Court that SIT
has not examined whether the
complainant has invoked Clause 12 and
Clause 49 of the agreement.
4. Be that as it may, prima facie, from
the contents of the FIR it reveals that the
allegation appears to be of commercial
transactions, and, in such an eventuality
before registration of the FIR a
preliminary inquiry has to be done and
as informed to this Court no such
preliminary enquiry was done but after
registration of the FIR the matter was
transferred to the SIT for investigation.
In view of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Lalita
Kumari vs. Government of U.P. (2014) 2
SCC 1 a preliminary inquiry has to be
carried out before registration of the FIR
particularly in reference to the five
categories of cases, as categorized by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Lalita Kumari 's case (supra) which are
as follows:-
(a) Matrimonial disputes/Family
disputes.
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal
delay/laches in initiating criminal
prosecution, for example, over 3 months'
delay in reporting the matter without
satisfactorily explaining the reasons for
delay.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
pointed out that the FIR has to be
registered only in respect of the
cognizable offence in terms of Section
154 Cr.P.C. but here in this particular
case before registration of the FIR no
such attempt was made and without
examining whether cognizable offence is
made out or not multiple FIRs have been
lodged against the applicant. He submits
that lodging and registering multiple FIRs
in respect of similar nature of offence,
which relates to the commercial dispute,
is apparently an abuse of process of law.
6. Let the concerned officer who
registered the FIR including Head of the
SIT file detail response within three
weeks positively to explain whether
before registration of the FIRs the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra) which
still holds a good law has been complied
with or not.
7. Since, learned counsel for the
applicant apprise to this Court that in
some of the FIRs, relating to the similar
nature of allegation, the Coordinate
Bench has already been granted bail to
the applicant, therefore, the applicant be
enlarged on bail.
8. In this regard, this Court is of the
view that since this Court is examining
why the multiple FIRs have been
registered that to in respect of
commercial transaction without
examining whether there is cognizable
offence or not, therefore, at this juncture
the applicant can be granted interim bail.
9. Mr. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate
General for the State also fairly submits
that this aspect has to be examined
particularly in the light of the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) which
still holds a good law and further in the
light of the mandate of Section 154
Cr.P.C. which clearly provides that only
in respect of the cognizable offence the
FIR has to be registered .
10. The suggestion as given by Mr.
Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General
is really appreciable because what this
Court observed that in respect of those
cases, which, in fact are categorized by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Lalita Kumari (supra) no attempts are
being made to conduct preliminary
inquiry before registration of the FIR.
11. Let counter affidavit be filed within
three weeks.
12. List on 02.09.2025.
13. In the meantime, the present
applicant Kuldeep Nandrajog is admitted
for an interim bail for a period of one
month in relation to FIR Nos. 147 of
2024, 139 of 2024, 143 of 2023, 410 of
2023 and 479 of 2023 registered at P.S.
Bahadrabad, District Haridwar subject to
his executing a personal bond of Rs.
25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand)
and the same bond shall hold good in all
present FIRs in which the applicant is
seeking bail and there shall be two
sureties of equal amount of Rs. 20,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Thousand) which shall
hold good in all the FIR.
14. Personal appearance of the officials
concerned is exempted.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
05.08.2025
Parul
