2025:UHC:2944 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 318 of 2025 17 April, 2025 Kiran Kaur Alias Bablee --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA for the State. Mr. Bhuvneshi Joshi, learned counsel for the informant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the FIR No.87 of 2025 dated 29.03.2025, under Section 309(6), 318(4) and 61(2)(a) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar qua the petitioner. 3. The facts in nutshell are that an FIR was lodged by the informant-Mohit Chaubey against the petitioner and seven others. It was stated in the FIR that the petitioner came in contact with the informant and she lured the informant to purchase gold. The informant kept on avoiding her for three months, but due to constant efforts made by the petitioner, he came under her bluff. On 26.03.2025, 1 2025:UHC:2944 petitioner took the informant at a place where other accused persons were already present. The informant when asked for sample of the gold, a piece of gold was cut from the gold coin which, when checked by the informant from goldsmith, was found to be of 24 carats. Believing on the assurance given by the petitioner that the gold supplied to him is pure, the informant paid her Rs.70 lakhs, which she received on the date of incident. When the informant asked the petitioner to get the gold, he was told to wait for some time and after lapse of 10-15 minutes, other accused persons entered in the house being armed with baton and sticks and at once, they started to belabor the informant with the weapons held by them, due to which, the informant got injured. The accused persons after cheating the informant looted the bag contained money and fled towards the fields. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made in the body of FIR do not constitute any offence against the petitioner; petitioner has no concern with the gold allegedly shown to the informant; no denomination of the currency was given of the amount of Rs.70 lakhs by the informant and the FIR is liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has argued that the offence in-question is a serious one wherein the petitioner lured the informant and duped him for an amount of Rs.70 lakhs. It is only the petitioner upon whose assurance the informant gave money which the accomplice of petitioner looted. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully considering the contents of the FIR, the fact whether the amount was actually given to the accused persons by the petitioner or not; the petitioners complicity 2 2025:UHC:2944 in the crime; the veracity of the crime alleged against the petitioner; all these facts cumulatively point out towards the involvement of the petitioner in the crime prima facie. 7. Having regard to the facts of the case, this Court does not find any ground to grant any relief to the petitioner at this stage. The petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed at the threshold itself. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.04.2025 AK 3