2025:UHC:1268 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.122 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned senior counsel (through V.C.) assisted by Mr. Yogesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuli and Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holders for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 & 2. 3. Mr. Aditya Singh (through V.C.), Mr. Abhishek Verma (through V.C.) and Mr. Shariq Khurshid, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent No.3-complainant. 4. By means of the present criminal writ petition, petitioners have challenged the FIR No.72 of 2025 dated 18.02.2025 registered with Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar under Sections 318(4), 351(2) & 61 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no offence has been made out against the petitioners, from the perusal of the averment made in the FIR. He further contended that the allegations in the FIR are in nature of civil dispute, therefore, the petitioners deserve some protection by this Court. 6. Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for respondent No.3 that the FIR discloses the commission of the cognizable offences at the hands of petitioners. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the FIR, this Court is of the view that prima-facie, commission of cognizable offences is made out against the petitioners and this 2025:UHC:1268 Court is not a fact finding Court to look into as to whether the offence is proved or not at this stage. 8. The offences alleged against the petitioners are very serious in nature of duping the respondent No.3 of huge money on false assurances that all complaints against respondent/informant would be settled. One Crore rupees were allegedly demanded by the petitioners; Rs.54,50,000/- were paid in cash on different dates by the respondent No.2. A cheque of Rs.8,00,000/- was also given in the name of petitioner No.2-Lovepreet Singh. According to FIR, there is recording of audio and video of the transaction with the respondent/ informant. 9. In this view of the matter, this Court doesn’t want to interfere with the impugned FIR. Moreover, the petitioners do not fall within the parameters given in the case of Neeharika, Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, therefore, this Court declines to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, the criminal writ petition is dismissed in-limine. 11. Pending application also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 21.02.2025 PN