Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8756 (UTT)

Anoop Kumar Agrawal v. State Of Uttarakhand

2026-03-19

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2026
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ of mandamus or in nature of mandamus to transfer the investigation of all the FIRs, as state in para 2 of the writ petition, lodged against the present petitioner from the Uttarakhand Police to any to an independent investigating agency like Central Bureau of Investigation or an SIT constituted by this Hon’ble Court under the supervision of a retired High Court Judge, which is not under the control of the Government of Uttarakhand. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other writ declaring the registration of FIR, after grant of interim protection by this Hon’ble Court on 03.05.2024 in SLP (Crl.) No. 900/2024 as illegal arbitrary and violative of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. (iii) Quash all the FIR as mentioned in para 2 of the writ petition. Alternatively direct that all FIRs mentioned in para 2 of the writ petition be investigated by an independent investigation to be conducted either by the Central Bureau of Investigation or an SIT constituted by this Hon’ble Court under the supervision of a retired High Court Judge. (iv) Direct no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in as much as registering of any other FIR without prior leave of this Hon’ble Court. (v) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. As it appears from relief (i) the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to transfer the investigation of all FIRs as mentioned in para 2 of the petition from Uttarakhand Police to an independent investigating agency like CBI or SIT to be constituted by the High Court. 2. As it appears from relief (i) the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to transfer the investigation of all FIRs as mentioned in para 2 of the petition from Uttarakhand Police to an independent investigating agency like CBI or SIT to be constituted by the High Court. Now at this juncture para 2 of the writ petition is being reproduced herein as under:- “2.The present writ petition is being filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction to protect the fundamental rights of the petitioner under article 14 and 21 in the light of repeated malicious prosecution by way of registration of multiple false FIRs being (i) FIR No. 0601/2022 registered at P.S. Kashipur U/s 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC dated 23.09.2022 (ii) FIR no. 551/2023 registered with PS Kashipur u/s 147, 148, 149, 384, 307, 323, 504, 506 of IPC dated 26.10.2023 (iii) FIR No. 589/2023 registered with PS Kashipur /s 384, 504, 506 IPC dated 26.11.2023 (iv) FIR No. 102/2025 registered with PS Kashipur u/s 78, 79, 356(2) 351(2) and 352 BNS dated 12.03.2025 (v) FIR No. 226/2025 registered with PS Bazpur u/s 406, 420, 504, 506 and 34 IPC dated 12.06.2025 registered against the petitioner in the State of Uttarakhand to direct an independent investigation to be conducted either by the Central Bureau of Investigation or an SIT constituted by this Hon’ble Court under the supervision of a retired High Court Judge, in the above-mentioned 5 (five) FIRs and as the FIRs registered against the petitioner arises out of blatant abuse of the criminal justice process, at the instance of some political influential persons, as this Hon’ble Court fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Now as it appears from relief (i) there is no reference of a particular FIR though in para 2 reference of five FIRs has been given the details of which are as follows:- (i) FIR No. 0601 of 2022, registered at P.S. Kashipur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC dated 23.09.2022. (ii) FIR No. 551 of 2023, registered at P.S. Kashipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 384, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC dated 26.10.2023. (iii) FIR NO. (ii) FIR No. 551 of 2023, registered at P.S. Kashipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 384, 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC dated 26.10.2023. (iii) FIR NO. 589 of 2023, registered at P.S. Kashipur for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 504, 506 IPC dated 26.11.2023. (iv) FIR No. 102 of 2025, registered at P.S. Kashipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 78, 79, 356(2), 351(2) and 352 of BNS 2023 dated 12.03.2025. (v) FIR No. 226 of 2025 registered at P.S. Bazpur for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 and 34 IPC dated 12.06.2025. 4. At this juncture Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State raised serious objection particularly in reference to relief (i) by submitting that out of five FIRs in two FIRs. i.e. FIR No. 551 of 2023 and FIR No. 589 of 2023, on completion of investigation charge sheet has already been filed and, therefore there is no question to transfer the investigation of these two FIRs to any other agency. Mr. Virk, submits that there is no disclosure about the fact that in these two FIRs the investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. 5. So far as relief (ii) whereby the petitioner is seeking declaration of registration of FIR as illegal and arbitrary as well as violative of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 03.05.2024 in SLP (Crl.) No. 900 of 2024 is concerned, first of all the reference is being made of the order passed by the Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 900 of 2024 whereby interim protection was granted to the petitioner. The first order passed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid SLP dated 24.01.2024 is read as under: “1. Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. 2. Dasti service, in addition, is granted. 3. In addition to the usual mode, liberty is granted to the petitioner to serve notice through the Standing Counsel for the respondent/State. 4. By way of ad interim order, in the event of arrest petitioners be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 551/2023 dated 26.10.2023 registered at P.S. Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, subject to them executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each, with one or more sureties in the like amount. 5. By way of ad interim order, in the event of arrest petitioners be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 551/2023 dated 26.10.2023 registered at P.S. Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, subject to them executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each, with one or more sureties in the like amount. 5. However, the petitioners are directed to cooperate with the investigation and report to the Investigating Officer as and when directed to do so.” Subsequently, the aforesaid order of interim protection dated 24.01.2024 was made absolute on 03.05.2024, which reads as under:- “1. Learned counsel for the respondent/State and the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the petition. 2. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the special leave petition is disposed of by making the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by this Court absolute. 3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 6. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Dy. A.G. for the State submits that relief (ii) is also misconceived and cannot be granted for the simple reason that the petitioner is praying for declaration of registration of FIR as illegal and arbitrary after grant of order of protection by the Hon’ble Supreme Court though as it reveals from the order granting interim protection by the Hon’ble Apex Court the protection was granted only in reference to FIR No. 551 of 2023 and as a matter of fact the investigation of the said FIR was already completed and charge sheet has also been filed much prior to the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 03.05.2024 whereby the order of interim protection dated 24.01.2024 was made absolute. He submits that by virtue of relief (ii) the petitioner cannot seek declaration of registration of FIR as illegal and arbitrary merely on the ground that the other FIR has been registered after grant of interim protection by the Hon’ble Apex Court in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 wherein it is held that registration of First Information Report (FIR) is mandatory if the information discloses the cognizable offence and if the police officer refuses to register the FIR despite the cognizable offence, action can be taken against them. By giving reference of the aforesaid judgment of Lalita Kumari ( supra) Mr. Virk, learned Dy. A.G. submits that relief (ii) is thoroughly misconceived. He further pointed out that there is another aspect of the matter that the relief (ii) cannot be granted for the simple reason that the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby protection was granted to the petitioner is only confined to FIR No. 551 of 2023 and there is no restrain order by the Apex Court that no further FIR can be lodged or registered, therefore, relief (ii) in fact is contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari ( supra) , and, therefore, relief (ii) is liable to be rejected. 7. The next relief is relief (iii) whereby the petitioner is praying for quashing of all FIRs as mentioned in para 2 of the writ petition and alternatively praying for transfer of investigation to be conducted by the independent investigating agency like CBI or SIT which he has already prayed for in relief (i). In respect of relief (iii), Mr. Virk, learned Dy. A.G. submits that relief (iii) is in fact contrary to relief (i) and misconceived since by this relief the petitioner is praying for quashing of all FIRs and alternatively praying for transfer the investigation to another agency. Mr. Virk submits that in relief (iii) there is no reference of a particular FIR and as pointed out earlier in two FIRs, i.e., FIR No. 551 of 2023 and FIR No. 589 of 2023 charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no question for quashing of these two FIRs and so far as other FIRs are concerned from the face of it cognizable offences are made out which requires investigation and as such cannot be quashed. He further submits that relief (iii) is consequential to relief (ii) and contrary to relief (i) and as such the same is misconceived and cannot be granted. Mr. Virk also submits that praying for transfer of investigation to another independent agency and simultaneously praying for quashing of FIRs cannot be prayed for at once and rest of the reliefs are consequential to relief (i) (ii) and (iii). 8. Mr. Virk also submits that praying for transfer of investigation to another independent agency and simultaneously praying for quashing of FIRs cannot be prayed for at once and rest of the reliefs are consequential to relief (i) (ii) and (iii). 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the registration of multiple FIRs against the petitioner despite protection order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is nothing but blatant abuse of criminal justice process at the instance of some political influential person. In the petition reference of all the FIRs has been given and also attack on the conduct of the police officials. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that by the previous order dated 16.02.2026, in fact, the writ petition is confined to only two FIRs i.e. FIR No. 226 of 2025 and FIR No. 102 of 2025, therefore, the instant petition be treated to be confined to two FIRs. 9. I perused the previous order dated 16.02.2026 from which it reveals that an undertaking was given by the petitioner that he will cooperate with the investigation consequently he was directed to get instruction from his client on which date he will appear before the concerned I.O. and the matter was posted on 24.02.2026 and simultaneously concerned I.O. was directed to take another date before the Sessions Court where he has moved an application for vacating the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court in FIR No. 104 of 2025. By subsequent order dated 24.02.2026, the petitioner was directed to appear before the I.O. concerned in order to record his statement and till such time the interim protection was granted to the petitioner that no coercive action shall be taken against him and simultaneously State was directed to apprise this Court about the status of the investigation 10. Yesterday specific query was put on to Mr. Virk the learned Dy. A.G., whether the petitioner appeared before the concerned I.O. in compliance to the previous order and on such query Mr. Virk pointed out that though the petitioner appeared before the I.O. but entered in the police station with 15 to 20 supporters including 10 to 12 Advocate with one sitting M.L.A. and the entries were also made in the general diary. Consequently, Mr. Virk pointed out that though the petitioner appeared before the I.O. but entered in the police station with 15 to 20 supporters including 10 to 12 Advocate with one sitting M.L.A. and the entries were also made in the general diary. Consequently, Mr. Virk was directed to place on record the extract of general diary by way of an affidavit and now in compliance thereof the I.O. concerned filed an additional affidavit by enclosing the relevant extract of general diary particularly G.D. No. 52. 11. I perused the additional affidavit along with the extract of general diary and what it reveals that petitioner though appeared before the concerned I.O. but with 15 to 20 supporters, 10 to 12 Advocates and one sitting MLA which itself shows that the petitioner in fact misused the liberty granted by this Court pursuant to previous order dated 16.02.2026 and 24.02.2026. Entering in the police station with 15 to 20 supporters along battery of lawyers and one sitting MLA reveals that to somehow the petitioner make an attempt to influence the investigation by adopting pressure tactics which is wholly unwarranted. The petitioner should keep in his mind that he is a suspected accused facing investigation and the High Court granted him protection so that he may cooperate with the investigation so that the investigation be concluded in a fair and transparent manner. What was the purpose of the petitioner to enter in the police station with 15 to 20 supporters and battery of lawyers with a sitting MLA. In one side, the petitioner is praying for transfer of investigation to CBI since he has no trust on the State investigating agency and in another way he himself adopting pressure tactics on the investigating agency as it appears from the G.D. entry. Mr. Virk, learned Dy. A.G. also shown certain video clips which he has received from the I.O. concerned. Such a conduct of the petitioner cannot be accepted which is nothing but amount to an interference with the investigation, despite the fact that even the Court should refrain from interfering with the investigation. 12. So far as reliefs as sought in this petition are concerned this Court fully convinced with the arguments of Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Dy. Such a conduct of the petitioner cannot be accepted which is nothing but amount to an interference with the investigation, despite the fact that even the Court should refrain from interfering with the investigation. 12. So far as reliefs as sought in this petition are concerned this Court fully convinced with the arguments of Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Dy. A.G. that the reliefs as sought cannot be granted as firstly the relief (i) appears to be very vague one whereby the petitioner is praying for transfer of investigation of all FIRs as mentioned in para 2 though as a matter of fact out of five FIRs in two FIRs investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet has been filed, therefore, without challenge to the charge sheet there is no question for quashing of the FIRs. 13. So far as relief (ii) is concerned, the relief as sought is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari ( supra ). The registration of FIR is in fact is the mandate of law, therefore, no such declaration, as sought, can be granted merely on the ground that interim protection is granted to the petitioner by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No. 900 of 2024 particularly when there is no restrain order for registration of another FIR with different allegations 14. So far as relief (iii) is concerned, relief (iii) is nothing but appears to be repetition of relief (i) and (ii) and as observed in the preceding paragraphs in two FIRs charge sheet has already been filed which has not been challenged so far. Remaining FIRs are under investigation and there is no such material which warrant transfer of investigations to any other investigating agency particularly when the petitioner to somehow make an attempt to influence the investigation, and, in such an eventuality this Court decline to grant such relief. 15. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition, and, is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. Investigation agency proceed and conclude the investigation as per law. Interim protection granted earlier is also vacated. 16. No order as to costs.