Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand on 19 March, 2026

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
             AT NAINITAL
                       Writ Petition (CRL) No. 467 of 2026

Deepak Kumar Alias Akki and Another.
                                 ..................... Petitioners.

                                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand
and others.                                              ...............Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Navnish Negi, Mr. Himanshu Aswal, Mr. D.S. Mehta and Mr. K.K. Tiwari, learned
counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. with Mrs. Sweta Badola Dobhal and Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned
Brief Holder for the State.



Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners are praying for the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned FIR No. 19 of 2026 dated 31.01.2026 under section 115(2) (causing hurt), 191(1) (rioting), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), and 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "BNS") registered at Police Station-Kotdwar, District-Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to take immediate cognizance of the complaint dated 31.01.2026 filed by petitioner no. 1, register appropriate FIRs against the identified perpetrators of hate speeches and threats, conduct a fair and expeditious investigation, and prosecute them under relevant provisions of BNS, including Sections 196 (promoting enmity between groups), 351 (criminal intimidation), and other applicable laws.

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioners and their families in view of the threats to their lives.

iv. Issue a writ, or direct the respondent no. 1 to initiate departmental inquiry against the erring police officials,

including respondent no. 3, for their partisan conduct and failure to act against hate crimes.

2. Admittedly, the petitioners are suspected accused persons in a First Information Report lodged on 31.01.2026 i.e. FIR No. 19 of 2026 for the offences punishable under sections 115(2), 191(1), 351(2) and 352 of BNS, 2023 at P.S. Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, and the petitioners are praying for quashing of the same.

3. Now, in relief (ii) the petitioner is praying for direction to the respondent nos. 1 to 3 i.e. Secretary (Home), Superintendent of Police of District Pauri Garhwal and the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, to take immediate cognizance on the complaint of the petitioner dated 31.01.2026 and register appropriate FIRs against the identified perpetrators of hate speeches and threats and conduct a fair and expeditious investigation and in addition to this the petitioners are further praying for prosecuting those persons under the relevant provisions of BNS including section 196 (promoting enmity between groups) and 351 of BNS, 2023. State counsel raised serious objection in respect of relief (ii) and submits that if petitioner's complaint was not registered then why he has not availed the remedy by invoking under section 175(3) of BNS, 2023 for registration of FIR and now instead of availing the aforesaid remedy for registration of the FIR by virtue of relief (ii) the petitioner is praying for registration of the FIR that too in a writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is wholly unwarranted.

4. In reference to relief (ii) now the question is if BNSS, 2023, makes a provision to approach the concerned court for registration of the FIR if there is an inaction on part of the concerned official in registering the FIR then whether the

petitioners can pray for registration of FIR by way of instant writ petition.

5. By relief (i) petitioners are is praying for quashing of the FIR in which the petitioners are the suspected accused, therefore, praying for additional relief that too by relief (ii)' appears to be an attempt to adopt a pressure tactics upon the Investigating Agency given task for investigating the impugned FIR No. 19 of 2026, therefore, this court is of the view that when there is statutory remedy available under section 175(3) of BNSS, 2023 then instead of availing statutory remedy praying for registration of the FIR in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wholly unwarranted particularly when a person, who is praying for registration of the FIR is himself is an accused in one of the FIR, therefore, relief (ii) is wholly unwarranted and misconceived at this stage and cannot be granted at this juncture particularly when the petitioner himself facing investigation pursuant to impugned FIR.

6. Learned State counsel have also informed to this court that so far as the complaint of the petitioner dated 31.01.2026 is concerned, the reference of which has been given in relief (ii) two First Information Reports have already been registered, one on 08.02.2026 bearing FIR No. 0025 of 2026 at P.S. Kotwali for the offence punishable under section 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and another one was registered on 11.02.2026 bearing FIR No. 0028 of 2026 at P.S. Kotwali Kotdwar, copy of which are placed before this court.

7. Learned State counsel submits that instant writ petition was moved on 20.02.2026 whereas both the FIRs on the complaint of the petitioner were registered much prior to the date of filing instant writ petition i.e. on 08.02.2026 and 11.02.2026 but the petitioners suppressed this fact deliberately.

8. On this Mr. Navnish Negi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that no such any information was given by the concerned police official about registration of these two FIRs i.e. FIR No. 25 of 2026 and FIR No. 28 of 2026.

9. To examine this aspect at this juncture it is also relevant to mention here that the impugned FIR dated 31.01.2026 is registered at P.S. Kotwali Kotdwar, numbered as FIR No. 0019 of 2026 and these subsequent FIRs on the complaint of the petitioner were also registered in the same police station, therefore, at this juncture, the stand of learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted that the petitioner was not aware about these two subsequent FIRs dated 08.02.2026 and 11.02.2026 in which the petitioner no. 1 is himself the complainant. Thus, this court is of the view that the petitioner no. 1 was fully aware about registration of two subsequent FIRs but he has suppressed this fact in the instant petition.

10. Now, the another relief is relief (iii) wherein the petitioner is praying for directions to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioners and their family in view of the threats to their lives.

11. So far as relief (iii) is concerned, learned State counsel on telephonic instruction from the concerned I.O. inform to this court that there is no such threat perception. Even otherwise, to examine relief (iii) two aspects are relevant, the first one is that the status of the petitioner as on date is as a "suspected accused"

in relation to First Information Report dated 31.01.2026 bearing FIR No. 19 of 2026, therefore, when the status of the petitioner as on date is of "suspected accused" then whether the petitioner can pray for the adequate police protection when he himself is under investigation. Interestingly in this petition by relief (i) the

petitioner is praying for quashing of the FIR in which he is under investigation, however by relief (iii) he is praying for adequate police protection. How a suspected accused, who is under investigation, can pray for police protection. Such a relief at this juncture by a person, who is a suspected accused, is wholly unwarranted and it appears that relief (iii) is being sought in order to put pressure upon the Investigating Agency and, therefore, such a relief for seeking adequate police protection cannot be granted. The another aspect in order to examine relief

(iii) is that admittedly the petitioner is suspected accused and is under investigation pursuant to the impugned FIR, and, therefore, this court is of the view that the police administration is competent enough to keep on watch for his safety.

12. So far as relief (iv) is concerned, the petitioners are praying for holding a departmental inquiry against the erring police officials including respondent no. 3 for their partisan conduct and failure to act against hate crimes. This court takes serious note of relief (iv) which is being sought by a person who himself is facing investigation in relation to FIR which is under challenge. This court is primarily of the view that praying for such a relief by person who himself is an accused and facing investigation is unwarranted since the investigation is still going on in respect of an incident of 26.01.2026 and 31.01.2026. Therefore praying for such a relief for initiating a departmental proceeding against the erring officials is nothing but somehow an attempt to influence the pending investigation in respect of the impugned FIR as well as to the FIR lodged on the complaint of the petitioner i.e. FIR No. 0025 of 2026 and 0028 of 2026.

13. Put up this matter tomorrow (20.03.2026) for further arguments.

14. Learned State counsel shall handover both the FIRs to the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

19.03.2026 PR