CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Arpan Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand & others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 8 November 2017 · Citation: (2017) 11 UK CK 0019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhanshu Dhulia
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-420>Section 420</a>, <a href=1767-468>Section 468</a>, <a href=1767-471>Section 471</a>, <a href=1767-467>Section 467</a>, <a href=1767-167>Section 167</a>, <a href=1767-465>Section 465</a>, <a href=1767-218>Section 218</a>, <a href=1767-219>Section 219</a>, <a href=1767-474>Section 474</a>, <a href=1767-466>Section 466</a> - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Forgery for purpose of cheating - Using as genuine a forged document - Forgery of valuable security, will, etc - Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury - Punishment for forgery - Public servant framing incorrect record orriting with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture - Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, etc. contrary to law - Having possession of document described in Sec. 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine - Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
1818 of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 166 words
1.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate, present for the petitioner.

2.

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, present for the State/respondent Nos.1 &

2.

3.

A First Information Report has been lodged by respondent No.3, which has been registered as Case Crime No.32 of 2017 under Sections 167/218/219/420/465/466/467/468/471 & 474 of IPC, at ROP SIDCUL, Police Station Rudrapur, District-Udham Singh Nagar. In the First Information Report, the petitioner is not named but his name surfaced during the course of investigation. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has approached this Court for relief.

4.

The matter relates to the Prevention of Corruption Act where many Officers of the State Government are involved. During the course of investigation, the name of the petitioner has also been surfaced as one of the accused.

5.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offence, no interference is being called for by this Court in the matter.

6.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.