Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8183 (UTT)

PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA MUDGAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPCRL/1407/2021 · 2025-02-18

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:1103 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. 1407 of 2021 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. Mr. Gaurav Panwar, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. By means of this writ petition, which was filed in 2021, petitioner has sought the following relief:- “(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Investigating Officer of the Case Crime No. 11 of 2021 under Section 406 IPC P.S. Rishikesh District Dehradun not to pressurize the petitioners to handover the vehicle registration no. UK 04DB 4007 to the respondent and not to harass the petitioners as they are regularly cooperating with the investigation.” 4. After going through the prayer, learned State Counsel submitted that the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived. He further submits that the direction, as sought by the petitioner, cannot be issued in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the Investigating Officer has filed charge-sheet against the petitioners. If petitioner has any grievance, he may approach to the appropriate court for relief. 5. This Court finds substance in the contention made by learned State 2025:UHC:1103 Counsel. This Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere in the investigation of a crime and the Investigating Officer has to be given free hand, so that guilty person are brought to book. 6. In such view of the matter, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 18.02.2025 Aswal