2025:UHC:2222 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 249 of 2025 26th March, 2025 Sangeeta Rana ………..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Anil Anthwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.(Oral) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby petitioner have put to challenge FIR No.0009 of 2025 dated 11.03.2025, under Sections 21(3), 22, 3 and 4 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019, Section 3 of Uttarakhand Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2005 and Section 111, 318(4), 336, 338, 340(2), 352 and 61(2) of B.N.S. 2023 registered with Police Station-Ukhimath, District-Rudraprayag. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that in the year 2017 LUCC Society (hereinafter referred to as “Society”) was established in Ukhimath, District Rudraprayag, in which the petitioner used to discharge her duties and liabilities, inducing people to invest in their society. After investment of certain amount by people in the society, the Society got closed, in the year 2024, and the petitioner and other members of the Society were accused of siphoning off huge the funds invested by the stake holders. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herself is a victim of the alleged scam as she was under the impression that the said Society is registered with Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India and Ministry of Co-operative and there is no chance of misappropriation of funds invested in the society. 2025:UHC:2222 2 Moreover, the petitioner with one Ms. Babita Bhatt made a complaint dated 29.01.2024 before Superintendent of Police, Rudraprayag showing her bona fide in the matter. 4. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no.3-Smt. Arti Rawat, who was Manager in the Society, after removal of the petitioner from the Society started extending threats to her and with a mala fide intention lodged the aforesaid F.I.R. against her. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is accused of grave offence against the society as a whole. Furthermore, from the F.I.R. it is apparent that the petitioner was also entangled with the Society in committing of the said offences. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the entire material available on record. 7. Since the offences alleged against the petitioner are very serious in nature, therefore, this is not a fit case where the Court is inclined to interfere in the matter to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Prima facie a case is made out against the petitioner, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to move the bail application before the appropriate forum. 9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 26.03.2025 SK