2025:UHC:4419 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 509 of 2025 Mustafa --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Sweta Badola Dobhal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 & 2. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has put to challenge the FIR No.77 of 2025 dated 02.03.2025, u/s 144, 64 of the B.N.S. Act, 2023, u/s 3/4 and 16/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and u/s 3, 5, 6, 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, registered with Police Station Kaliyar Sharif, District Haridwar, as well as for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid FIR. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.03.2025, respondent No.3 lodged an FIR with the averments that on the first floor of Hotel Chandini, aged about 16 years, Sitara aged about 36 years was found, Sahana along with one child, Khurshida with three children were found and they all stated that the petitioner has called them and they used to earn money by prostitution on the instance of owner and Manager. Thereafter all these were taken into custody, a recovery memo was prepared and on checking, it was found that after 26.02.2025, there was no entry 1 2025:UHC:4419 in the Hotel Register and it was revealed by the petitioner that he is owner of the hotel and the same had been given on lease to one-Adil. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is owner of the said hotel, however it was leased out to one co-accused Adil, therefore, he has got no connection with the alleged crime. He has falsely been implicated in the instant crime and have been made scapegoat. He further submits that there is no evidence whatsoever on record to establish that the petitioner has committed any offence. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supported the story narrated in the FIR and submits that prima- facie, the offences are made out against the petitioner. 6. From perusal of the first information report, this Court is of the view that prima-facie, the commission of cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. The offences alleged against the petitioner are very serious in nature, therefore, this Court doesn’t want to interfere with the impugned FIR. Moreover, prima-facie, the offences are made out. He deserves no protection from this Court. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition is dismissed in-limine. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.06.2025 PN 2 PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c7 8b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE06449848 3A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.06.04 16:48:26 +05'30'