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.199 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Anupam Kr. Sinha, learned counsel (appeared through V.C.) along with Mr. Tajhar Qayyum, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA along with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.5 to register FIR for offences of forgery fraud, impersonation, cheating, perjury criminal conspiracy, falsification of records, intentionally giving and fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding, using in a judicial proceeding evidence known to be false and fabricated etc.; (ii) Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.5 to place before this Hon’ble Court all complaints received till date pertaining to the said offences committed by the said Respondents and Action Taken Report thereon, in the interest of justice; (iii) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari recalling/quashing/setting aside the impugned bail order dated 24.03.2022 procured by Respondent no.6 in BA1 No.543 of 2022 in case titled as Kusum Chaudhary vs. State of Uttarakhand pertaining to FIR No.03/2021 registered u/s 420, 468, 469, 471, 186, 157A, 120B IPC and Sections 66C and 66D of the I.T. Act, registered in Vigilance Police Station, Haldwani, Nainital District on complete forged documents, in the interest of justice; (iv) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 and 2 for registration of FIR in respect of fake signatures in the Oath Commissioner’s Register/Records, for which a separate criminal case needs to be registered as forged/manipulated documents have been created in the Oath Commissioner’s Register/Records, within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, as it is a case, where forged affidavits were prepared and the said forged affidavits were filed in a judicial proceeding, and Respondent No.6 succeeded in getting an order of bail and she needs to be sent back to judicial custody. (v) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 and 2 to constitute Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by impartial experts of criminal investigation headed by senior IPC Officers with impeccable integrity or direct an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or National Investigation Agency (NIA) to investigate the Respondent no.6’s entire role and conduct as well as the unscrupulous persons who have been funding her activities including her various luxurious trips to Uttarakhand 2 and her litigations as there is a criminal gang headed by a convicted criminal – a mega fraud businessman involved in multiple scams and dozens of shell companies-whose order of conviction/imprisonment is now being heard by this Hon’ble Court, aiding and abetting her and thereafter prosecute the offenders in accordance with law. (vi) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 to take stringent disciplinary, departmental and other actions against the then IO for suppression of truth, records, deliberately not verifying the bail affidavits and documents, not raising a single objection to the forged bail application of Respondent No.6 and all other associated misconduct and dereliction of duty, in a time bound manner in accordance with law and place the said Action Taken Report for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.” 4. It is alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 24.03.2022, respondent no.6-Kusum Chaudhary @ Kusum Yadav @ Kusum Devi @ Fatima Begum was released on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court pursuant to her custody in connection with FIR No.3 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 469, 471, 186, 157A, 120B IPC and Section 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Vigilance Establishment, Sector Haldwani, District Nainital. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is a journalist and he allegedly uncurled the recruitment scam pursuant to which the FIR was lodged. 6. From perusal of the first information report, it is clear that petitioner is not an informant in the case. Furthermore, he has got no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.03.2025 AK 3