Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4266 (UTT)

LAKHVINDER SINGH ALIAS LUCKY AND ANR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPCRL/239/2025 · 2025-04-01

Pankaj Purohit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:2361 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL No.239 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. B.M. Pingal and Ms. Sarita Bisht, Advocates for the petitioners. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Mr. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the F.I.R. No.0235 of 2024 dated 29.12.2024, under Section 25/3 of Arms Act, 1959, Section 109 of B.N.S. 2023 and Section 21, 60 and 8 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, registered with Police Station Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. The main grievance of the petitioners was that a report was submitted by the Police that the petitioners are not wanted in connection with the aforesaid offences under the impugned F.I.R., despite surrendering twice, before the court of competent jurisdiction, but still the Police is harassing them for no reason. 5. Vide order dated 26.03.2025 State counsel was directed to seek instructions in the matter that as to why petitioners are being harassed, pursuant to impugned F.I.R. 6. Today, on instructions, which are taken on record, learned State counsel submits that pursuant to impugned F.I.R. a charge sheet have been submitted against the accused persons named in the said F.I.R., however, nothing was done against the petitioners, who were not concerned with the impugned F.I.R. 7. In this view of the matter, writ petition is closed, however it is made clear that respondent no.3 shall not harass the petitioners, in connection with the aforesaid case or any other case until and unless there are credible evidence against them. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 01.04.2025 SK