UKHC010168692021 2026:UHC:5190 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL/2363/2021 Shashank Sharma ……Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand …..Respondents Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Ms. Menka Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned special counsel for C.B.I./respondent no.3. 5. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.2 to take an appropriate decision on the representation dated 22.10.2017, which was submitted by the petitioner before the Hon'ble President of India and thereafter forwarded to the competent authority/Registrar vide communication dated 10.01.2018. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to respondent no.2 to take appropriate action against respondent nos.4 to 7 and to direct respondent no.3 to conduct a fresh/re-investigation in respect of F.I.R. No.776 of 1993, registered under Sections 302 and 394 of I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali, District Dehradun on 14.07.1993. The petitioner UKHC010168692021 2026:UHC:5190 has also sought issuance of a writ directing respondent no.2 to inquire into the proceedings of Original Suit No.179 of 2001, particularly with regard to the alleged abatement of the suit and the payment of requisite court fee by respondent no.8, and thereafter to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent no.4 had lodged the aforesaid F.I.R. alleging that while he, along with one Saeed @ Pannu, had reached Dhamawala Chowk, two unknown persons assaulted Saeed @ Pannu with knives, resulting in his death, whereas the complainant somehow managed to escape; that, pursuant to registration of the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer conducted investigation and submitted a charge- sheet against the petitioner and the co- accused; that, the petitioner had applied for bail, which came to be rejected; that, during the course of trial, the learned trial court summoned the relevant medical records from the hospital. 7. Learned counsel would further submit that the real dispute between the parties pertains to an immovable property which had been granted to the petitioner under a perpetual lease deed; that, respondent no.8 intended to purchase the said property and, in collusion with the petitioner's Chartered Accountant, obtained the petitioner's signatures on certain blank papers, which were subsequently converted into a handwritten receipt showing the petitioner as an attesting witness; that, on the strength of the said documents, UKHC010168692021 2026:UHC:5190 respondent no.8 managed to get the receipt registered before the office of the Sub-Registrar; that, consequently, the petitioner instituted Original Suit No.179 of 2001 seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or creating third-party rights in respect of the perpetual leasehold property; that, thereafter, respondent no.8 instituted Original Suit No.2179 of 2011 seeking specific performance of the alleged agreement by praying for a decree directing execution of the sale deed in his favour upon payment of the balance sale consideration and for delivery of possession of the property; that, the aforesaid civil proceedings disclose serious irregularities warranting an independent inquiry. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that although a charge-sheet had been submitted in F.I.R. No.776 of 1993, the learned trial court, vide judgment and order dated 06.01.2003, acquitted the petitioner and the co-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 394/397 of the I.P.C.; that, aggrieved thereby, the State preferred Government Appeal No.370 of 2003, which was allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, whereby the judgment and order 06.01.2003 was set aside, and the petitioner along with the co-accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 394/397 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life; that, the petitioner thereafter preferred Criminal Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme UKHC010168692021 2026:UHC:5190 Court, which also came to be dismissed by a common judgment and order dated 13.07.2016, thereby affirming the judgment of conviction. It is, however, contended that notwithstanding the aforesaid proceedings, this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is empowered to issue appropriate directions where the ends of justice so require. 9. Per contra, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3-C.B.I. would vehemently oppose the writ petition and submitted that the criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No.776 of 1993 have attained finality upon dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that once the conviction has been affirmed by the Apex Court, no direction for fresh or re-investigation of the same offence can be issued in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is further contended that the other reliefs sought by the petitioner are either misconceived or pertain to disputes which have already been adjudicated by the competent civil courts, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. From the record, it is evident that the criminal prosecution arising out of F.I.R. culminated in the petitioner's conviction, which has been affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The issues relating to the criminal case have, therefore, attained finality. In such circumstances, this Court, while UKHC010168692021 2026:UHC:5190 exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue a direction for re-investigation of the same case or reopen proceedings that have attained finality by virtue of judicial pronouncements of the competent courts, particularly the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Likewise, the other reliefs sought by the petitioner do not warrant interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 12. Accordingly, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 13. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 30.06.2026 Mamta MAMT A RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af14 49e430ef900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c 9e68911ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd 004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.07.01 17:04:09 +05'30'