SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010131412026 WPCRL/1460/2026 Aditya Kumrey Pandeya --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Nitin Kamal proxy counsel for Mr. Shivam Gulai, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Jai Prakash Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the First Information Report/Case Crime No. 157 dated 18.07.2026, registered under Sections 351(2) and 352 of the B.N.S., at Police Station Kotwali Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned First Information Report has been lodged on wholly false, fabricated, and concocted allegations, motivated by an ulterior intent to harass the petitioners; that, the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case; that, the FIR has been registered merely to pressurize the petitioners; that, even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment not exceeding seven years; that, the petitioners undertake to cooperate fully with the investigation and assures appearance before the Investigating Officer whenever required. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, submits that the offences alleged in the impugned F.I.R. are punishable with imprisonment for a term which does not exceed seven years. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, prays that the present criminal writ petition be disposed of in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, with a direction to the respondent authorities to comply with the statutory safeguards governing arrest and investigation. 6. Learned State Counsel would oppose the writ petition. However, he does not dispute the fact that the offence alleged in the impugned F.I.R. is punishable with imprisonment which does not exceed seven years. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R. in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction at this stage, particularly when the investigation is still in progress. It is, however, not disputed that the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment which does not exceed seven years. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the Investigating Officer shall proceed with the investigation strictly in accordance with law as well as the guidelines and directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, before effecting the arrest of the petitioner 9. It is clarified that in the event the Investigating Officer forms an opinion that arrest of the petitioner is necessary, the statutory requirements prescribed under law shall be complied with in letter and spirit. 10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Alok Mahra, J.) 28-07-2026 Mamta MA MTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f 244f3e584af1449e430ef900b f09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d 9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b6 6dd26690a191648ab5d8dd0 04ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.07.29 16:20:26 +05'30'