2025:UHC:2593 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.291 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Ravindra S. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned D.A.G. with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 & 2. 3. By means of the present criminal writ petition, petitioner has challenged the FIR No.264 of 2025 dated 01.03.2025, for the offences punishable u/s 2 and 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered with Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are four other cases (except this case) filed against the petitioner, in which the petitioner has been bailed out by the learned trial court. He further contends that the police has falsely implicated present petitioner in the present matter. He also contends that neither the present petitioner is leader of any gang nor he is part of any gang. He further submits that the prosecution has no material and reliable evidence to prove the allegations levelled against the petitioner and as such the prosecution has no legs to stand, hence, FIR against the petitioner is false and is abuse of process of law. 5. Per contra, it is contended by learned State Counsel that the FIR discloses the 2025:UHC:2593 commission of the cognizable offence at the hands of petitioners. There are four serious cases of robbery and attempt to murder to the credit of petitioner. He is a threat to society. 6. 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 prima-facie, the commission of cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. This Court is not a fact finding Court to look into as to whether the offence is proved or not at this stage. The offence alleged against the petitioner is very serious in nature, therefore, this Court doesn’t want to interfere with the impugned FIR. Moreover, the petitioner does 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal writ petition is dismissed in-limine. 8. Pending application also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.04.2025 PN