Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2772 (UTT)

BOBY TYAGI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPCRL/113/2025 · 2025-04-23

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.113 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the informant, for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.3 and 4 to take the necessary action against the respondent nos.5 and 6 in pursuance of the FIR No.174 of 2024, under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC dated 26.08.2024, P.S. Basant Vihar, District Dehradun. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 SSP, Dehradun to considered and decide the complaint/application dated 22.11.24 and 31.11.24 of the petitioner (Annexure No.7 and 8) of the writ petition. (iii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that after investigation, the final report has been submitted on 17.03.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions provided to him by his client informed this Court that after filing of the final report, the objection has been filed by the petitioner-informant before the Circle Officer and the matter has been sent for further investigation, and the Investigating Officer has also been changed. 6. In view of the aforesaid situation, nothing remains to be decided in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, closed. (Pankaj Purohit J.) 23.04.2025 Ravi