Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4526 (UTT)

VARUN KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPCRL/764/2026 · 2026-05-02

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:3320 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. 764 of 2026 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Ravindra S.Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A for the State. 3. The petitioner Varun Kumar Sharma is praying for quashing of the First Information Report dated 22.04.2026 bearing FIR No. 0121 of 2026 Police Station I.T.I. District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein the petitioner along with Jitendra Chawla have been implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 318 (4) , 351(3) and 352 read with section 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. On the previous date it was argued that deceased died due to cardiac arrest despite this FIR has been lodged under the penal provision of Section 103(1). On such submission the S.H.O. was directed to be remain present in Court why the FIR has been registered for the offence punishable under section 103(1) of BNS, 2023, and today, the S.H.O. is present. 5. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, the learned AGA on instructions from the S.H.O. apprise to this Court that after getting the post mortem report of the deceased section 103(1), 318(4) and 61 have already been deleted and the investigation is going against the remaining penal provision. He further submits that now all the penal provisions in which the investigation is going on, are punishable for less than seven years, therefore, the concerned I.O. is under legal obligation to follow the guidelines as formulated by the 2026:UHC:3320 Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 while conducting the investigation. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that if the investigation is only confined to the other penal provision except 103(1) then the petition can be disposed of in the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. 7. In view of the submissions, as advanced above, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the concerned I.O. to follow the guidelines as formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) while conducting the investigation and issue notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS 2023 as and when it requires while conducting the investigation. 8. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 02.05.2026 Nahid 2026:UHC:3320