2025:UHC:1060 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. 1312 of 2021 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. K.S. Bora, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. J.P. Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner has sought quashing of Case Crime/FIR No. 50 of 2011, registered in Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that, upon investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner. Thus, he submits that the writ petition has become infructuous. 5. Merely because charge sheet is filed, will not render the writ petition infructuous. FIR can still be quashed, if no case is made out from reading of the FIR. 6. The impugned F.I.R. is on record as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. The allegations against the petitioner are specific and the ingredients of the 2025:UHC:1060 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. 7. 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, has summarized the legal position and has also set out the parameters within which the interference with the F.I.R. can be made by High Court. None of the parameters laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, for invoking power under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing an FIR, are met in the present case. 8. 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. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.02.2025 Navin 2025:UHC:1060