2025:UHC:1648 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.181 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Aayush Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Kuldeep S. Rawal and Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuli and Ms. Sweta Dobhal, learned Brief Holders for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. By means of the present criminal writ petition, petitioners have challenged the FIR No.3 of 2025 dated 03.02.2025 registered with Police Station Bhowali, District Nainital under Sections 419, 420, 424, 464, 467, 468 IPC. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR lodged by the respondent No.4 is nothing but a bundle of lies; no offence has been committed by the petitioners as alleged by the respondent No.4 in the impugned FIR; no criminal offence is made out against the petitioners. He further contended that the present case comes within the category of those cases which requires interference of this Court to prevent abuse of process of law and to prevent an innocent person from being putting behind the bars. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suneet Gupta Vs. Anil Triloknath Sharma and Others reported in (2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 670. 6. Per contra, it is contended by learned State Counsel that the FIR discloses the commission of the cognizable offences at the hands of petitioners. 2025:UHC:1648 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 the case law which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no help to the petitioners in the given facts and circumstances of the case and prima-facie, the commission of cognizable offences is made out against the petitioners. This Court is not a fact finding Court to look into as to whether the offence is proved or not at this stage. The offences alleged against the petitioners are very serious in nature, therefore, 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. 8. Accordingly, the criminal writ petition is dismissed in-limine. 9. Pending application also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.03.2025 PN