SALEEM ALIAS SALEEM SISHTI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
WPCRL/1091/2021 · 2025-02-13
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7087 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7087 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:UHC:876 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.1091 of 2021 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
There is no representation for the petitioner.
Mr. K.S. Bora, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. J.P. Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
2. Petitioner has sought quashing of F.I.R./Case Crime No.536 of 2021, for offences punishable under Section 365 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar.
3. The impugned F.I.R. is on record as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. The allegations against the petitioner are specific and the ingredients of the offences are made out. Whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. are correct or not, cannot be examined at this stage. It is matter of trial.
4. In view of parameters laid down by 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, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned F.I.R.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
13.02.2025 Arpan