Uttarakhand High Court
9 March vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 19 March, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
2026:UHC:1942
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 1009 of 2025
19 March, 2026
Anoop Kumar Agrawal --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & Ors. --Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. P.N. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate (through V.C.) assisted
by Mr. Alok Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Government Advocate with Mr. J.S. Virk,
learned Dy. Advocate General for the State.
————————————————————–
(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 the1
2026:UHC:1942
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. 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 against2
2026:UHC:1942
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. 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.
3
2026:UHC:1942
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.
4
2026:UHC:1942
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
5
2026:UHC:1942
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
6
2026:UHC:1942
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. 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.
7
2026:UHC:1942
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 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
8
2026:UHC:1942
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.
9
2026:UHC:1942
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
10
2026:UHC:1942
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.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
Parul
11
