DINESH KUMAR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner filed WPCRL No. 724 of 2019 before Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J., seeking quashing of F.I.R. No. 32 of 2017 dated 11.03.2017 registered at Police Station Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, alleging offences under Sections 167/218/219/409/420/465/466/467/468/471/474/120-B/34 IPC read with Section 13(1)(d), 8 & 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner contended he was innocent, wrongly implicated, that an order under Section 143 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act declaring his land non-agricultural was subsequently withdrawn, and that he had received ₹6,00,000 as compensation for land acquired for a National Highway and was willing to return it. There was no representation for the petitioner; Mr. Sachin Panwar appeared as Brief Holder for the State. The State informed a charge sheet has been filed and trial is pending. The matter was heard and disposed of on 20.07.2023.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the FIR (No. 32 of 2017) should be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the petitioner's contentions (innocence, withdrawal of non-agricultural declaration, willingness to return compensation) are sufficient grounds to quash the FIR.
3. Whether the parameters laid down in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & others (AIR 2021 SC 1918) for exercise of power under Article 226 to quash an FIR are satisfied.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• Petitioner is innocent and has been wrongly roped into the case.
• No malafide or illegal act causing financial loss to the State was committed by the petitioner.
• An order under Section 143 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act had declared the petitioner's land non-agricultural which was later withdrawn.
• Petitioner received ₹6,00,000 as compensation for land acquired for a National Highway and is ready to return the amount.

State's Arguments

• The issues raised by the petitioner are not sufficient to quash the FIR; the contentions amount to defences appropriate for trial.
• A charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is facing trial, hence quashing is not appropriate at this stage.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court noted that whether the allegations in the FIR are correct cannot be adjudicated at the writ stage and is a matter for trial. It observed the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences. Applying the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & others (AIR 2021 SC 1918), the court concluded those parameters were not satisfied to justify interference under Article 226. Having regard to the cognizable nature of the offences and the absence of satisfaction of the Neeharika criteria, the court declined to interfere with the FIR.

Holding and Implications

Writ petition dismissed.

Implications: The impugned F.I.R. remains on record and the criminal proceedings/ trial may continue; the court did not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to quash the FIR. The opinion does not set or announce any new precedent beyond applying the Neeharika criteria.