2025:UHC:5943 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 677 of 2025 10 July, 2025 Julfikar and Anr. --Petitioners Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Shakib Husain, learned counsel for petitioners. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 and 2. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have put to challenge the FIR No.547 of 2024 dated 22.09.2024, for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, registered with Police Station Gangnahar, District Dehradun. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.3-complainant lodged the aforesaid FIR against the petitioners alleging therein that on 07.11.2023, respondent No.3 collected Rupees Forty Lakh from his relatives and Rupees Fifteen Lakh was withdrawn from Utkarsh Bank Account, total amount of Rupees Fifty Five Lakh was given to the petitioners and the petitioner No.1 gave Range Rover Car as guarantee to the respondent No.3; this car was on finance, whose installment was deal to be paid by the petitioner No.1, thereafter, when 1 2025:UHC:5943 respondent No.3 was going to Dehradun via Ibrahimpur, on 03.07.2024, the said car was forcibly snatched by the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 returned the amount of Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh to the respondent No.3, but they did not return the remaining amount of Rupees Twenty Seven Lakh despite requesting several times and threatened the respondent No.3 not to return the balance amount. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the allegation leveled by the respondent No.3 in FIR about the huge money of Rupees Fifty Five Lakh were given to petitioners, but, neither there was any such transaction nor any document or any contract of the given money is there, which shows the money transaction was made out between the parties. 5. It is further contended by him that the petitioner No.1 is a political person and therefore the respondent No.3 wants to trap him in a false case so that he would not participate in any election; respondent No.3 has made a concocted story against the petitioners. Further, no offence is made out against the petitioners and the alleged Section does not attract in the present crime. He also contends that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the instant crime just to tarnish their image. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that prima-facie, cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. 2 2025:UHC:5943 6. From perusal of the first information report, this Court is of the view that prima-facie, the commission of cognizable offences is made out against the petitioners. This Court is not a fact finding Court to look into as to whether the offences are proved or not at this stage. The offences alleged against the petitioners are very serious in nature, therefore, this Court doesn’t want to interfere with the impugned FIR. Moreover, the petitioners do not fall within the parameters given in the case of Neeharika, Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, therefore, this Court declines to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition is dismissed in-limine. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.07.2025 PN 3 PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe3 8331bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81 FAE064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959 AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.07.10 16:19:10 +05'30'