2025:UHC:7250 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Criminal No. 707 of 2025 18 August, 2025 Rahul Chauhan --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Reema Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the informant, who lodged the first information report against the petitioners. Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.3, who impersonated the actual informant and subsequently filed the compounding application. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. 1. By means of present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed to issue a writ of certiorari quashing of FIR dated 11.01.2025 lodged by respondent no.3 at Police Station Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, which was registered as FIR No.0020 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 318(4), 336 (3), 338 & 340(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. Along with present writ petition, compounding application (IA No.1/2025) has also been filed wherein it has been prayed to decide the matter in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Before delving any further into the merits of the compounding application, it needs to be mentioned that on the previous date, the parties had appeared before this Court, and respondent no.3, namely Anil Kumar Sharma, had also appeared, wherein he unequivocally stated before the Court that he had neither signed nor preferred any kind of compounding application in this matter. 2025:UHC:7250 2 3. In such view of the matter, no question arises to compound the matter. The compounding application (IA No.1/2025) is accordingly, rejected. 4. Heard on the merits of the writ petition. 5. The facts of the case are that the FIR was lodged by respondent no.3 with the averments that in respect of land/khatoni, total area 1.8100 hectare situated at Mauja Badowala, Pargana Pachuvadun, Tehsil Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, Uttarakhand which was mutated in the name of one Nirmal Singh. After the death of said Nirmal Singh on 25.08.2004, land mafias, present petitioner along with two others, on the basis of forged and fabricated documents sold out the land on 06.11.2024. Respondent no.3 stated himself to be the legal heir of late Nirmal Singh and accordingly, prayed for registration of case against the accused persons. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence is made out against the petitioner, and the allegations, as stated, do not constitute any offence, particularly with respect to the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel emphatically supported the version of first information report. 8. The present matter relates to sale and purchase of land recorded in favour of one Nirmal Singh, who breathed his last on 25.08.2024. The informant is the legal heir of Nirmal Singh. When the said fact came to his knowledge, he lodged the impugned FIR. The petitioner along with two others hatched the conspiracy and sold the land on the basis of forged and fabricated 2025:UHC:7250 3 documents. The matter is serious in nature, which requires thorough investigation. 9. This Court holds that the individual who appeared as respondent no. 3 in WPCRL No. 694 of 2025 committed a deliberate fraud upon this Court by impersonating the informant and thereby unlawfully obtaining the benefit of quashing the FIR impugned in WPCRL No. 694 of 2025 through a forged compromise. Such actions constitute criminal misconduct, impersonation, and obstruction in administration of justice, and are liable to prosecution under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and other applicable laws. Furthermore, the judgment and order dated 02.07.2025 passed in WPCRL No.694 of 2025 has now been recalled by this Court vide its order dated 18.08.2025 and a direction is also given to lodge the FIR. Similar attempt has also been made in this case which was thwarted by timely appearance of the real informant. 9. Having regards to the fact and circumstances of the case, petitioner does not deserve any relief from this Court at this stage. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. 10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 18.08.2025 AK