2025:UHC:2274 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.182 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Kurban Ali and Ms. Lubhna Jahan, learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned D.A.G. with Ms. Sweta Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent No.1. 3. It is submitted by learned State Counsel that after investigation, the charge-sheet has already been submitted pursuant to FIR No.616 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022 registered with P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. By means of the present criminal writ petition, petitioner has prayed for respondents to immediately produce the police report regarding inquiry made by the police against the respondent No.2 under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and further to direct to respondent concerned to file the police report under aforesaid Section as per this Hon’ble Court’s order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 22.09.2022 in Criminal Writ Petition No.1726 of 2022 Rajiv Pandey Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., has held that the investigation should have been examined against the respondent (petitioner of that writ petition) under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. I have gone through the order dated 22.09.2022 which was passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with the criminal writ petition in which the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No.165 of 2021, whereby, the petitioner was summoned. The remark which has been made by the Coordinate Bench of 2025:UHC:2274 this Court was a passing remark and only on the basis of that remark, the Court has asked the Investigating Officer to examine against the petitioner of that writ petition under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is highly misconceived and the same is rejected. 7. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition is dismissed in-limine. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 27.03.2025 PN