Poonam Devi And Ors. vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have put to challenge the FIR No.133 of 2025 dated 20.05.2025, u/s 103(2), 109 and 352 of the B.N.S. Act, 2023, registered with Police Station Kotwali Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, as well as for a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to arrest the petitioners pursuant to the aforesaid FIR.

The brief facts of the case are that on 20.05.2025, respondent No.3 (informant), who is nephew of the petitioners, lodged an FIR with the averments that his father had a dispute with his brothers-Kundan Singh Mehra (petitioner No.3), Vijay Pal Singh Mehra (petitioner No.2) and Balram Singh Mehra regarding the ancestral property. On 19.05.2025, in the midnight, his cousin-Rahul Mehra S/o Kundan Singh Mehra visited his house and thereby, inflicted the severe injuries on the person of his mother and father with iron rod/wooden stick; on account of which, his mother died and his father was seriously injured who has been admitted in the Kotdwar Base Hospital. It is further alleged in the FIR that the present petitioners had on earlier occasions also misbehaved with his parents.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that from the contents of FIR, it reveals that the specific role has been attributed to Rahul Mehra, who inflicted the serious injuries on the parents of respondent No.3. However, no role has been attributed to the petitioners nor any mens rea or motive is assigned to the petitioners by the prosecution. It is also contended by him that the respondent No.3 has only doubted that since the petitioners used to misbehave with his parents, hence, the complicity of the petitioners can be examined to the extent. It is also contended by him that there is no legally admissible evidence against the petitioners, which can connect them in commission of the alleged crime; there is no criminal antecedent to the credit of the petitioners; the respondent No.3 has falsely implicated the petitioners so that he can settle his personal score.

Per contra, learned State Counsel supported the story narrated in the FIR and submits that prima-facie, the offences are made out against the petitioners.

From perusal of the first information report, this Court is of the view that prima-facie, the commission of cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. The offences alleged against the petitioners are very serious in nature, therefore, this Court doesn’t want to interfere with the impugned FIR. Moreover, prima-facie, the offences are made out. They deserve no protection from this Court. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition is dismissed in-limine.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.