2025:UHC:697 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL No. 1011 of 2021 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J. 1. There is no representation for the petitioner. 2. Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. No. 0213/2021 dated 3.6.2021, U/s 34, 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C. lodged by respondent no. 3 at P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar against the petitioner (Annexure No. 4 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondent nos. 1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with impugned F.I.R. No. 0213/2021 dated 3.6.2021, U/s 34, 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C., lodged by respondent no. 3 at P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar against the petitioner (Annexure No. 4 to this writ petition). 4. Learned State Counsel, on instructions, submits that upon investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner, as Investigating Officer found sufficient evidence to proceed against the petitioner. Thus, it is contended that writ petition has become infructuous. 5. The said contention, however, cannot be accepted. Mere filing of charge sheet will not render the writ petition 2025:UHC:697 infructuous. The impugned F.I.R. is on record as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. Perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that allegations made against the petitioner are specific. 6. Whether the allegations are correct or not can only be adjudicated during trial. This Court cannot go into the question, whether petitioners are guilty or not. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, reported in AIR 2021 SC 1918, have laid down parameters for exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution, in such matters. 7. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference with the impugned FIR while exercising extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 11.02.2025 Aswal