2025:UHC:4961 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No.609 of 2025 16 June, 2025 Hema Batham @ Nidhi --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Bharat Chaudhary, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr. S.C. Dumka and Mr. V.S. Rawat, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 to 3. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for a direction to respondent No.2 to decide her representation dated 18.05.2025 within stipulated period. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner got lodged an FIR No.149 of 2025 dated 20.07.2025 against the respondent No.4, for the offences punishable under Sections 351(3), 352 and 64(1) of the B.N.S. Act, 2023, with P.S. Kotwali, District Dehradun; but the FIR was not lodged under the appropriate Sections, as the Investigating Officer was hand in glove with respondent No.4. It is further submitted by him that the petitioner thereafter approached the respondent No.2 through representation dated 18.05.2025, in which, she had prayed for change of Investigating Officer and to refer the investigation to other Investigating Officer, as the respondent No.4 is influential person and is hand in glove with police, due to which, no sincere effort has been made by the police to investigate the matter in accordance with law. 1 2025:UHC:4961 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the petitioner has made specific allegation against the accused persons in respect to the role played by them in commission of such heinous crime, furthermore, there are sufficient material evidence available with the Investigating Officer to proceed with the investigation and to take appropriate measure against the accused persons, but, Investigating Officer utterly failed to do so and he is hand in glove with the accused persons, which is apparent from the conduct of the Investigating Officer coupled with the progress of the investigation, hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 18.05.2025 to respondent No.2 to change the IO. 5. I have gone through the impugned FIR and the documents available on record. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is highly misconceived and the same is rejected. 6. In view of the above, the present criminal writ petition is dismissed in-limine. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.06.2025 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=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fa dbe38331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCA E81FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF 08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.06.17 16:22:27 +05'30'