| SL. No | Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures | COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
| WPCRL No. 724 of 2019 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. There is no representation for the petitioner. Mr. Sachin Panwar, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R. dated 11.03.2017, being F.I.R. No. 32 of 2017, under Sections 167/218/219/409/420/465/466/467/ 468/471/474/120-B/34 I.P.C. R/w Section 13(1)(D), 8 & 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. The impugned F.I.R. is on record as Annexure No.-1 to the writ petition. 4. It is stated in the writ petition that petitioner is innocent and has wrongly been roped in the instant case. It is contended that no malafide or illegal act was committed by petitioner, which would cause financial loss to the State. It is contended that order under Section 143 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was made by the Assistant Collector declaring petitioner’s land as non-agricultural, but subsequently that declaration was withdrawn. It is admitted that petitioner received ` 6,00,000/- as compensation for his land which was acquired for construction of National Highway and he is ready to return the amount, |
1
which he received as compensation.
5. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that issues raised by petitioner in this writ petition are not sufficient for quashing the F.I.R. He submits that contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner at best can be treated as his defence, which can be considered only during trial. He points out that charge sheet has been filed against petitioner and he is now facing trial.
6. Whether the allegation made in the F.I.R. against petitioner are correct or not, cannot be adjudicated at this stage. It is a matter of trial.
7. Since F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence and none of the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918, are satisfied for exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
8. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
20.07.2023
Arpan
2
3
Comments