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.290 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is present. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA and Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State are present. 3. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has put to challenge the FIR No.422 of 2024 dated 10.10.2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 506 IPC registered with Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. When the matter was listed as fresh, it was the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that his client has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no connection with the allegations made in the FIR. 5. This Court vide order dated 07.04.2025 protected the interest of the petitioner by directing not to take any coercive measure against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR, and at the same time, directed the State Counsel to seek clear instructions in the matter. 6. Today, learned State Counsel has supplied to the Court, the instructions dated 08.04.2025 which are taken on record. On the basis of those instructions, it is submitted by learned State counsel that the co-accused, namely, Satvinder Singh transferred the amounts of Rs.7,00,000/-, Rs.75,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively in the account of the petitioner through National Electronics Fund Transfer (NEFT), which was allegedly given to Satvinder Singh by the informant/complainant. He also submits that as many as twelve cases of similar nature have already been registered against the petitioner. He further informed the Court that for ensuring the petitioner’s appearance, proceedings under 2 Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. have also been initiated. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned FIR as well as considering the previous track record of petitioner which shows that 12 cases of similar nature are pending investigation against him, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the present case. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in-limine. 9. Interim order dated 07.04.2025 stands vacated. 10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.04.2025 AK