2025:UHC:2224 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 75 of 2025 26th March, 2025 Sunesh and Ors. ……..Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Mohd Umar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.(Oral) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby petitioners have put to challenge FIR No.0294 of 2024 dated 11.10.2024, under Sections 115, 351(2), 352 and 64(1) of B.N.S. 2023, Sections 10, 11 and 9 of The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and 3/4 of P.O.C.S.O. Act, 2012, registered with Police Station I.T.I. (Kashipur), District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that respondent no.4 is the brother of Kajal, who is 16 years of age. On 12.08.2024 elder sister of respondent no.4 called Kajal to his home and got her wed with his brother-in-law (Jitendar), who, in turn, intoxicated Kajal and established physical relation with her. On many occasions, in-laws of Kajal harass her and made demand of dowry, to which she protested, and when respondent no.4 got to know about the said incident he tried to lodge a complaint against brother in-law and other petitioners in I.T.I. Kashipur and S.D.M. Kashipur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioners are false and the F.I.R. registered against the petitioners is done in a routine and mechanical manner without proper enquiry and investigation, which is sheer abuse of process of law. 2025:UHC:2224 2 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the offences alleged against the minor sister (Kajal) of respondent no.4. are very serious in nature and it is apparent from the F.I.R. that the petitioners are involved in wrong doing against the victim. 5. I have perused the entire material available on record. 6. Since the offences alleged against the petitioners are very serious in nature, therefore, this is not a fit case where the Court is inclined to interfere in the matter to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Prima facie a case is made out against the petitioners; therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 26.03.2025 SK