Kulvinder Sigh & Ors. ............... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 20 February, 2026

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

           Hon'ble Justice Sri Rakesh Thapliyal

                      20th February 2026
           Criminal Writ Petition No. 128 of 2026

Kulvinder Sigh & Ors.                  ............... Petitioners
                           Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others
                                       ............Respondents

With Stay Vacation Application No. 3 of 2026

Along with connected matters

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Yogesh Upadhyay and Mr. Kaushal Sah Jagati, learned counsel Counsel for the State: Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned Brief Holder.

Counsel for the respondent: Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel through V.C. (Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

1. The Stay vacation application bearing IA No.3 of 2026 has been moved on behalf of the Investigating Officer-respondent no. 2 for vacating the interim order dated 16.01.2026 with this contention that the SIT has been constituted for the investigation of the impugned FIR and custodial interrogation of the petitioners of WPCRL No. 128 of 2026 are required.

2. In all these writ petitions, petitioners are praying for quashing of impugned FIR dated 12.01.2026 bearing FIR No. 0013 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Section 108 and 318(4) of BNS, 2023. As per the allegations, as alleged, in the FIR there was some transaction of huge money in between the petitioners and the deceased for the purposes of execution of sale deed of certain piece of land owned by

some other persons but sale deed was not executed despite huge payment, consequently, deceased commit suicide.

3. Now for examining the case, the impugned FIR for the time being can be read in two parts. First part relates to transaction of money for the purpose of executing sale deed and next part relates to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

The petitioners were granted interim protection by Coordinate Bench on 16.01.2026 subject to this condition that they will cooperate with the investigation. Now stay vacation application has been moved on the ground that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are required.

4. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State submits that during money transaction huge amount have been credited in the accounts of the two petitioners, namely, Kulvinder Singh and Amarjeet Singh, who are petitioner no. 1 and 2. Roughly figure of the amount which were credited in their account on different dates are; Rs. 1 lakh which was credited on 13.04.2025, and Rs. 4 lakh credited in the account of Kulvinder Singh and Rs. 10 lakhs credited in the account of Kulvinder Singh on 15.04.2025 in Axis Bank. In June 2025 a sum of Rs. 77 lakhs were further credited in the account of Kulvinder Singh. These amounts were credited for the purposes of selling out 1.3780 Hectare land owned by two persons, namely, Kulwant Singh and Balwant pursuant to an oral agreement of April 2025. In addition to the amount, as aforesaid, Rs. 13 lakhs more

were also paid by the deceased on 03.06.2025 and remaining balance of Rs. 60 lakh were also paid in cash, however, no sale deed was executed. Subsequently, the matter discussed and settled in Panchayat and it was resolved that another piece of land , owned by one "Rajeev Agarwal" will be sold to the deceased and his brother "Parvinder Singh" for which power of attorney has been given by Mr. Rajeev Agarwal, the actual owner, to Mr. Vimal Kumar, the petitioner no. 6 herein. Total cost of the land of Mr. Rajeev Agarwal is about 4.05 crore of the area measuring 7000 sqft., for which Rs. 25 lakh was paid to "Mr. Vimal Kumar" on 01.08.2025 and subsequent thereto Rs 55 lakh more were credited in the account of Vimal Kumar, Power of attorney holder of Rajeev Agarwal. Thereafter the sale deed was executed on 01.08.2025 in favour of Parvinder Singh, brother of the deceased (Sukhwant Singh) who in fact commit suicide on 12.01.2026 in a hotel at Haldwani. It is submitted that before committing suicide on 12.01.2026, two days back the deceased came live in facebook and video was recorded in which he has stated that he was harassed and cheated. Based on recorded video clip, uploaded on the facebook on 12.01.2026, the FIR has been lodged. Mr. Virk also pointed out that before committing suicide, the deceased sent mail in the form of complaint to higher police officials.

5. After lodging of the FIR, instant petition has been preferred for quashing of FIR with this contention that the allegations as alleged in the FIR does not constitute an offence since there is no element of "Mens Rea" to incite the deceased to commit suicide and so far as

money transactions are concerned, the same are civil in nature which is evident from the fact that the sale deed was also executed in favour of "Parvinder Singh" brother of the deceased on 01.08.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the deceased, in fact, was having criminal record, since, he was indulged in criminal activities since 2018 and there were as many as five cases against him and since there was regular threat from the deceased and his brother, a WPCRL No. 1534 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred on 23.11.2025 by Amarjeet Singh, Ashish Chauhan, Kulvinder Singh and Gurprem Singh for seeking police protection to them as well as to their family members and in this petition Sukhwant Singh (deceased who committed suicide), Parvinder Singh (brother of the deceased) and Kundan Rautela, who was the then S.H.O. of P.S. ITI, Kashipur District U.S. Nagar, were arrayed as party respondents.

6. Subsequently, in WPCRL No. 1534 of 2025, Division Bench of this Court directed the S.H.O. of P.S. Kashipur to ensure that no untoward incident be happened.

7. Learned counsel submits that in the aforesaid protection writ petition, an affidavit was filed on 25.11.2025, by Sukhwant Singh (deceased now) wherein he stated that he want his money back in para 8, which reads as under:-

8. That the respondent no. 5 has been cheated by the petitioners, however he suffers from shock and sorrow and due to this reason he wants the money may be returned back to him, for the same he is

also ready for cancellation of sale deed, therefore, in the light of the aforesaid submission may kindly be issue suitable direction and further may kindly not to grant protection to the petitioners, otherwise the respondents will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

Aforesaid affidavit is also placed on record in this petition as Annexure no. 3. By referring the aforesaid affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the statement as made by the deceased in his affidavit dated 25.11.2025, does not reveal that there was any element of instigation and issue was only with regard to money transaction for execution of sale deed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in fact during the aforesaid transaction, a forged agreement was prepared in a stamp of Rs. 50/- on 19.07.2025, by forging the signature of petitioners which was also placed on record in pending WPCRL No. 1534 of 2025, wherein an IA No. 2 of 2025 has been filed on 21.12.2025 with the prayer to produce the said document in original for the purposes of forensic examination which is still pending for consideration.

To examine the submissions as aforesaid, record of WPCRL No. 1534 of 2025 is summoned. This Court perused IA No. 2 of 2025 moved under Section 379 read with Section 215 of BNSS 2023.

9. Subsequent thereto, instant writ petition was moved for quashing of impugned FIR wherein the Vacation Judge on 16.01.2026 granted protection subject to this conditions that the petitioners will not be

arrested by police in connection with the impugned FIR provided they cooperate with the investigation and shall remain present as and when required for production of document and for recording of their statement.

10. Now the stay vacation application has been filed by the I.O. on 04.02.2026, copy of which in advance was served to the counsel for the petitioner on 12.02.2026. Yesterday, matter was heard at length but on certain issues the matter is posted for today to examine on what material custodial interrogation of petitioners are required, particularly, when the petitioners were granted interim protection by the Coordinate Bench on 16.01.2026 subject to this condition that they will cooperate with the investigation and shall remain present before the I.O. as and when required for production of document and for recording their statement.

11. To answer the query, as aforesaid, Mr. Virk, learned Dy. Advocate General placed reliance to para 32 of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pratibha Manchanda and anr. Vs. State of Haryana and anr. (2023) 8 SCC 181, which read as under:-

32. It is immaterial that the genuineness of the 1996 GPA is already subjudice before the Civil Court in the civil suits pending between the parties. The appellants, owing to their age and residential status, cannot be expected to await indefinitely for the outcome of these civil proceedings. Regardless, the pendency of these cases does not estop the issues of forgery and fabrication being considered in the course of criminal investigation. The facts of the case speak for themselves and an element of criminality cannot be ruled out at this stage.

Whether or not the alleged offences were committed by Respondent No. 2 and his co accused in active collusion with each other can be effectively determined by a free, fair, unhampered and dispassionate

investigation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, custodial interrogation of not only Respondent No. 2 but all other suspects is, therefore, imperative to unearth the truth. Joining the investigation with a protective umbrella provided by prearrest bail will render the exercise of eliciting the truth ineffective in such like case. We are, as mentioned, also skeptical, suspicious and incredulous about the verification process of the 1996 GPA carried out by the Sub Registrar, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Hence, the conduct of the officials of SubRegistrar Office, Kalkaji, New Delhi is also required to be examined to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.

By referring the aforesaid judgment Mr. Virk argued that joining the investigation with a protective umbrella provided by pre-arrest bail will render the exercise of eliciting the truth ineffective and though the investigation has not been stayed but the petitoienrs are not cooperating with the investigation, therefore, for collecting the credible evidence their custodial interrogation are required.

12. In response to this, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners always cooperate with the investigation and the statement as given with regard to the non-cooperation is completely wrong and even otherwise they are ready to cooperate with the investigation but this is not the case in which their custodial interrogation is at all required. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that since the FIR in question relates to the offence punishable under section 108 and section 318(4) of BNS 2023 and fate of section 108 of BNS 2023 is completely based on outcome of the investigation for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS 2023, and, as such, their custodial interrogation is not needed since the same relates to documentary evidence which they will furnish. Learned

counsel for the petitioners placed reliance to Apex Court's decision in the case of Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260, wherein it is held that arrest is not necessary for the purpose of completion of investigation except in heinous crimes.

13. In response to this, learned counsel for the State Mr. Virk further placed reliance on another judgment of Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2021) 19 SCC 401, by referring para 33 which read as under:-

33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:

33.1) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence;

33.2) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

33.3) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; 33.4) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the 'rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

33.5) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

33.6) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

33.7) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;

33.8) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere;

33.9) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

33.10) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

33.11) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

33.12) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

33.13) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

33.14) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-

restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;

33.15) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;

33.16) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while

dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

33.17) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order.

33.18) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.

By referring the aforesaid judgment Mr. Virk submits that from the contents of the impugned FIR, cognizable offences are made out, therefore, petitioners have not made out a case for quashing of the FIR, and, as such they are not entitled to get any protection. Apart from this, Mr. Virk, also pointed out that all these petitioners have a criminal history except petitioner Vimal Kumar which has been denied by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that as on date no case is pending against the petitioners except present one.

14. Other connected petitions have been filed by other persons, since, 26 persons are named in the impugned FIR in which also Coordinate Bench granted similar protection.

15. Mr. Virk submits that in other petitions the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required except the petitioners of WPCRL No. 128 of 2026.

16. Since, in the instant petition as well as in the connected petitions, petitioners are praying for quashing of impugned FIR dated 12.01.2026, however, investigating agency sought custodial interrogation of petitioners of WPCRL No. 128 of 2026 only and stay vacation application have been served to the learned counsel for the petitioners on 12.02.2026, therefore, an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to file their response to the stay vacation application. So far as requirement of custodial interrogation is concerned, the Vacation Judge by order dated 16.01.2026 already granted interim protection to the petitioners subject to this condition that they will cooperate with the investigation as and when required and admittedly the investigation has not been stayed, therefore, at this stage instead of custodial interrogation all these petitioners shall appear before the concerned I.O. for further interrogation.

17. List this matter on 26.02.2026 on top of the board along with WPCRL NO. 1534 of 2025. It is made clear that all these petitioners shall appear before the I.O. tomorrow at 10:00 am and they will ensure their presence as and when required and on the next date Mr. Virk, learned Dy. A.G. shall inform to this Court about the status of the investigation and by that date counsel for the petitioners shall ensure to file the response to stay vacation application.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) Parul