2025:UHC:2805 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.335 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Ms. Nisha Bora, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka and Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal and Ms. Rangoli Purohit, learned Brief Holders for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 & 2. 3. By means of the present criminal writ petition, petitioner has challenged the FIR No.3 of 2025 dated 13.04.2025, for the offences punishable u/s 351(3), 352 and 64(1) of the B.N.S. Act, registered with Police Station Chakrata, District Dehradun. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the prosecution story, the incident took place on 10.04.2025 and the prosecutrix consumed the insecticide on the very same day and she was admitted in P.H.C.; at the time of admission she did not tell anything about consuming the insecticide to the doctor and also not informed about the incident of the rape, which shows the malafide intention of the informant and prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the informant-respondent No.3 has falsely implicated the petitioner with the help of the blackmailer Daulat Singh who is trying to get money from the petitioner by using his sister. He also contends that the prosecutrix has also a history of blackmailing to 3-4 persons 2025:UHC:2805 by making same charges on them and after getting money, the matter was settled in the village panchayats. 5. Per contra, it is contended by learned State Counsel that the FIR discloses the commission of the cognizable offence at the hands of petitioner. 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.) 21.04.2025 PN PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f 6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F922 9D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.04.21 15:35:17 +05'30'