High CourtsSingle Bench

Dharampal Bharti vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 19 March 2011 · Citation: (2011) 03 UK CK 0002

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prafulla C. Pant, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 500
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Writ Petition No. 98 of 2012 With Stay Application No. 806 of 2012

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

4 paragraphs · 240 words

Hon''ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard. By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of the First Information Report dated 10.01.2012, registered as Crime No. 12 of 2012, relating to offences punishable u/s 467, 468, 471, 420 and 500 of I.P.C., Police Station kotwali Laksar,District Hardwar.

2.

Learned counsel for the complainant pleaded that petitioner is a social worker, who is fighting against the corruption.

3.

However, the contents of the First Information Report disclose that the petitioner by projecting himself as a whistle-blower extorts money from the people. It is alleged that he is involved in black mailing the persons after making false allegations against them. It is also mentioned in the First Information Report that after inquiry the Tehsildar found allegation that petitioner extracts money from the people after making false complaints against them.

4.

Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the State, and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, and after going through the annexures filed with the affidavit and the counter affidavit, this court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation of the case. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed summarily with the observation that if the petitioner Dharampal Bharti surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Stay Application No. 806 of 2012 also stands disposed of).