Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2006 (UTT)

PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA ALIAS PAWAN GUPTA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPCRL/83/2025 · 2025-02-20

Pankaj Purohit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

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.83 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Ms. Reema Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal & Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned Brief Holders for the State. 3. By means of present criminal writ petition, petitioner has impugned the FIR No.0009 of 2025 dated 07.01.2025, under Section 318 (4) of BNS lodged at Police Station Kaladhungi, District Nainital. 4. From perusal of the first information report, it transpires that one agreement to sale was entered into between the parties for selling a chunk of land to the respondent no.3-informant at a sale consideration of Rs.1,15,00,000/- on 14.09.2022. Pursuant to the aforesaid agreement to sale, respondent no.3 transferred Rs.40 lakhs to the petitioner Rs.25 lakhs in cash and Rs.15 lakhs by bank transfer. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the previous date sought adjournment to file the account details in order to show petitioner’s credential that no money i.e. Rs.15 lakhs were transferred in his account by way of supplementary affidavit. Supplementary affidavit is on record. 6. On instructions, learned State Counsel submits that respondent no.3 had transferred an amount of Rs.15.00 lakhs to the account of petitioner on various dates. Rs.5 lakhs through NEFT from account maintained in Induslnd Bank; another Rs.5 lakhs to the account of Mr. Madhukar Shrotriya and Rs.5 lakhs to the account of M/s Deepak Communication and Light, who are friends of petitioner on 2 petitioner’s asking. 7. On the basis of bank account transactions, copies whereof are supplied in the Court and the same are taken on record, it is reflected that some transaction has been done in the matter and prima facie a case is made out against the petitioner, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the criminal writ petition is dismissed in- limine. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 20.02.2025 AK