2025:UHC:8581 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 1144 of 2025 24 September, 2025 Arif Ali --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the First Information Report No.331 of 2025 dated 04.07.2025, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of BNS, 2023, registered with Police Station SIDCUL, District Haridwar on the ground of settlement and compromise entered into between the parties. 2. The facts of the FIR in brief are that a report was lodged by respondent no.3-Krishna Pal posted in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar with the allegations that by defrauding and misappropriating the stamp and name of the Presiding Officer of the court of Second Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, fake receipt no. 378017 had been issued which actually was not issued by the said court. This fact was brought into the knowledge of the Presiding Officer. On inquiry, it was revealed that for disposal in Case No.866 of 2025, the aforesaid Receipt No.378017 dated 13.06.2025 had been issued for Rs.2,500/-. The receipt also did not bear the signature of the Presiding Officer, due to which, the case 2025:UHC:8581 2 was accordingly registered in the Police Station. Subsequently, it was revealed that the aforesaid crime had actually been done by the petitioner who was posted as a PRD employee. He had misused the signatures and the stamp of the Presiding Officer of the court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the FIR. 4. This is a matter of committing fraud with the court by forging and misusing the stamp and name of the court. This is a sheer abuse of the process of the court by an employee (petitioner) who was posted as a PRD employee. In such heinous matters, persons like petitioner do not deserve any kind of leniency by this Court. The petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed at the threshold itself. 5. Pending application, if any, stands disposed off accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 24.09.2025 AK