Kulvinder Sigh & Ors. …………… … vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 20 February, 2026
inkinccorporation@gmail.com
Uttarakhand High Court
Kulvinder Sigh & Ors. …………… … vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 20 February, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Hon'ble Justice Sri Rakesh Thapliyal
20th February 2026
Criminal Writ Petition No. 128 of 2026
Kulvinder Sigh & Ors. ............... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others
............Respondents
With
Stay Vacation Application No. 3 of 2026
Along with connected matters
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Yogesh Upadhyay and Mr.
Kaushal Sah Jagati, learned counsel
Counsel for the State: Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Dy. Advocate
General with Mr. Bhaskar Chandra
Joshi, learned Brief Holder.
Counsel for the respondent: Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel
through V.C.
(Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
1. The Stay vacation application bearing IA No.3 of
2026 has been moved on behalf of the Investigating
Officer-respondent no. 2 for vacating the interim order
dated 16.01.2026 with this contention that the SIT has
been constituted for the investigation of the impugned
FIR and custodial interrogation of the petitioners of
WPCRL No. 128 of 2026 are required.
2. In all these writ petitions, petitioners are praying
for quashing of impugned FIR dated 12.01.2026 bearing
FIR No. 0013 of 2026 registered for the offences
punishable under Section 108 and 318(4) of BNS, 2023.
As per the allegations, as alleged, in the FIR there was
some transaction of huge money in between the
petitioners and the deceased for the purposes of
execution of sale deed of certain piece of land owned by
2
some other persons but sale deed was not executed
despite huge payment, consequently, deceased commit
suicide.
3. Now for examining the case, the impugned FIR for
the time being can be read in two parts. First part
relates to transaction of money for the purpose of
executing sale deed and next part relates to instigate
the deceased to commit suicide.
The petitioners were granted interim protection by
Coordinate Bench on 16.01.2026 subject to this
condition that they will cooperate with the investigation.
Now stay vacation application has been moved on the
ground that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are
required.
4. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
State submits that during money transaction huge
amount have been credited in the accounts of the two
petitioners, namely, Kulvinder Singh and Amarjeet
Singh, who are petitioner no. 1 and 2. Roughly figure of
the amount which were credited in their account on
different dates are; Rs. 1 lakh which was credited on
13.04.2025, and Rs. 4 lakh credited in the account of
Kulvinder Singh and Rs. 10 lakhs credited in the account
of Kulvinder Singh on 15.04.2025 in Axis Bank. In June
2025 a sum of Rs. 77 lakhs were further credited in the
account of Kulvinder Singh. These amounts were
credited for the purposes of selling out 1.3780 Hectare
land owned by two persons, namely, Kulwant Singh and
Balwant pursuant to an oral agreement of April 2025. In
addition to the amount, as aforesaid, Rs. 13 lakhs more
3
were also paid by the deceased on 03.06.2025 and
remaining balance of Rs. 60 lakh were also paid in cash,
however, no sale deed was executed. Subsequently, the
matter discussed and settled in Panchayat and it was
resolved that another piece of land , owned by one
“Rajeev Agarwal” will be sold to the deceased and his
brother “Parvinder Singh” for which power of attorney
has been given by Mr. Rajeev Agarwal, the actual
owner, to Mr. Vimal Kumar, the petitioner no. 6 herein.
Total cost of the land of Mr. Rajeev Agarwal is about
4.05 crore of the area measuring 7000 sqft., for which
Rs. 25 lakh was paid to “Mr. Vimal Kumar” on
01.08.2025 and subsequent thereto Rs 55 lakh more
were credited in the account of Vimal Kumar, Power of
attorney holder of Rajeev Agarwal. Thereafter the sale
deed was executed on 01.08.2025 in favour of Parvinder
Singh, brother of the deceased (Sukhwant Singh) who
in fact commit suicide on 12.01.2026 in a hotel at
Haldwani. It is submitted that before committing suicide
on 12.01.2026, two days back the deceased came live in
facebook and video was recorded in which he has stated
that he was harassed and cheated. Based on recorded
video clip, uploaded on the facebook on 12.01.2026, the
FIR has been lodged. Mr. Virk also pointed out that
before committing suicide, the deceased sent mail in the
form of complaint to higher police officials.
5. After lodging of the FIR, instant petition has been
preferred for quashing of FIR with this contention that
the allegations as alleged in the FIR does not constitute
an offence since there is no element of “Mens Rea” to
incite the deceased to commit suicide and so far as
4
money transactions are concerned, the same are civil in
nature which is evident from the fact that the sale deed
was also executed in favour of “Parvinder Singh” brother
of the deceased on 01.08.2025. Learned counsel for the
petitioners argued that the deceased, in fact, was
having criminal record, since, he was indulged in
criminal activities since 2018 and there were as many as
five cases against him and since there was regular
threat from the deceased and his brother, a WPCRL No.
1534 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution has
been preferred on 23.11.2025 by Amarjeet Singh,
Ashish Chauhan, Kulvinder Singh and Gurprem Singh for
seeking police protection to them as well as to their
family members and in this petition Sukhwant Singh
(deceased who committed suicide), Parvinder Singh
(brother of the deceased) and Kundan Rautela, who was
the then S.H.O. of P.S. ITI, Kashipur District U.S. Nagar,
were arrayed as party respondents.
6. Subsequently, in WPCRL No. 1534 of 2025,
Division Bench of this Court directed the S.H.O. of P.S.
Kashipur to ensure that no untoward incident be
happened.
7. Learned counsel submits that in the aforesaid
protection writ petition, an affidavit was filed on
25.11.2025, by Sukhwant Singh (deceased now)
wherein he stated that he want his money back in para
8, which reads as under:-
8. That the respondent no. 5 has been cheated by
the petitioners, however he suffers from shock and
sorrow and due to this reason he wants the money
may be returned back to him, for the same he is
5also ready for cancellation of sale deed, therefore,
in the light of the aforesaid submission may kindly
be issue suitable direction and further may kindly
not to grant protection to the petitioners, otherwise
the respondents will suffer irreparable loss and
injury.
Aforesaid affidavit is also placed on record in this
petition as Annexure no. 3. By referring the aforesaid
affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that
the statement as made by the deceased in his affidavit
dated 25.11.2025, does not reveal that there was any
element of instigation and issue was only with regard to
money transaction for execution of sale deed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that
in fact during the aforesaid transaction, a forged
agreement was prepared in a stamp of Rs. 50/- on
19.07.2025, by forging the signature of petitioners
which was also placed on record in pending WPCRL No.
1534 of 2025, wherein an IA No. 2 of 2025 has been
filed on 21.12.2025 with the prayer to produce the said
document in original for the purposes of forensic
examination which is still pending for consideration.
To examine the submissions as aforesaid, record of
WPCRL No. 1534 of 2025 is summoned. This Court
perused IA No. 2 of 2025 moved under Section 379 read
with Section 215 of BNSS 2023.
9. Subsequent thereto, instant writ petition was
moved for quashing of impugned FIR wherein the
Vacation Judge on 16.01.2026 granted protection
subject to this conditions that the petitioners will not be
6
arrested by police in connection with the impugned FIR
provided they cooperate with the investigation and shall
remain present as and when required for production of
document and for recording of their statement.
10. Now the stay vacation application has been filed by
the I.O. on 04.02.2026, copy of which in advance was
served to the counsel for the petitioner on 12.02.2026.
Yesterday, matter was heard at length but on certain
issues the matter is posted for today to examine on
what material custodial interrogation of petitioners are
required, particularly, when the petitioners were granted
interim protection by the Coordinate Bench on
16.01.2026 subject to this condition that they will
cooperate with the investigation and shall remain
present before the I.O. as and when required for
production of document and for recording their
statement.
11. To answer the query, as aforesaid, Mr. Virk,
learned Dy. Advocate General placed reliance to para 32
of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Pratibha Manchanda and anr. Vs. State of Haryana and
anr. (2023) 8 SCC 181, which read as under:-
32. It is immaterial that the genuineness of the 1996 GPA is already
subjudice before the Civil Court in the civil suits pending between the
parties. The appellants, owing to their age and residential status,
cannot be expected to await indefinitely for the outcome of these civil
proceedings. Regardless, the pendency of these cases does not estop
the issues of forgery and fabrication being considered in the course
of criminal investigation. The facts of the case speak for themselves
and an element of criminality cannot be ruled out at this stage.
Whether or not the alleged offences were committed by Respondent
No. 2 and his co accused in active collusion with each other can be
effectively determined by a free, fair, unhampered and dispassionate
7
investigation. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,
custodial interrogation of not only Respondent No. 2 but all other
suspects is, therefore, imperative to unearth the truth. Joining the
investigation with a protective umbrella provided by prearrest bail
will render the exercise of eliciting the truth ineffective in such like
case. We are, as mentioned, also skeptical, suspicious and
incredulous about the verification process of the 1996 GPA carried
out by the Sub Registrar, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Hence, the conduct of
the officials of SubRegistrar Office, Kalkaji, New Delhi is also required
to be examined to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.
By referring the aforesaid judgment Mr. Virk
argued that joining the investigation with a protective
umbrella provided by pre-arrest bail will render the
exercise of eliciting the truth ineffective and though the
investigation has not been stayed but the petitoienrs are
not cooperating with the investigation, therefore, for
collecting the credible evidence their custodial
interrogation are required.
12. In response to this, learned counsel for the
petitioners argued that the petitioners always cooperate
with the investigation and the statement as given with
regard to the non-cooperation is completely wrong and
even otherwise they are ready to cooperate with the
investigation but this is not the case in which their
custodial interrogation is at all required. Learned counsel
for the petitioners submit that since the FIR in question
relates to the offence punishable under section 108 and
section 318(4) of BNS 2023 and fate of section 108 of
BNS 2023 is completely based on outcome of the
investigation for the offence punishable under Section
318(4) of BNS 2023, and, as such, their custodial
interrogation is not needed since the same relates to
documentary evidence which they will furnish. Learned
8
counsel for the petitioners placed reliance to Apex
Court’s decision in the case of Joginder Kumar vs. State
of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260, wherein it is held that arrest
is not necessary for the purpose of completion of
investigation except in heinous crimes.
13. In response to this, learned counsel for the State
Mr. Virk further placed reliance on another judgment of
Apex Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2021) 19 SCC
401, by referring para 33 which read as under:-
33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final
conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would
be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or
“no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High
Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the
accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation
or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C.,
while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the
criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our
final conclusions are as under:
33.1) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in
Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable
offence;
33.2) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
33.3) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence
of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the
Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
33.4) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare
cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of
death penalty).
33.5) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in
the FIR/complaint;
33.6) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial
stage;
33.7) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception
rather than an ordinary rule;
33.8) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State
operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to
tread over the other sphere;
9
33.9) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
33.10) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would
result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial
process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of
offences;
33.11) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to
its whims or caprice;
33.12) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence
reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in
progress, the court should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not
deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of
process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer
finds that there is no substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be
considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the
known procedure;
33.13) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the court to be more
cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the
court;
33.14) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit,
regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-
restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid
down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra)
and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the
FIR/complaint;
33.15) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the
alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the
allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable
offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits
whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a
cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;
33.16) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the
aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High
Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an
interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the
quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an
interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually
and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in
progress and the facts are hazy and the entire
evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court
should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to
arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused
should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section
438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall
not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to
arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation
or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final
report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while
10
dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
33.17) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the
opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim
stay of further investigation, after considering the broad
parameters while exercising the powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief
reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is
required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application
of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what
was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim
order.
33.18) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court
of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid
parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by
“no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps
to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which
can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.
By referring the aforesaid judgment Mr. Virk
submits that from the contents of the impugned FIR,
cognizable offences are made out, therefore, petitioners
have not made out a case for quashing of the FIR, and,
as such they are not entitled to get any protection.
Apart from this, Mr. Virk, also pointed out that all these
petitioners have a criminal history except petitioner
Vimal Kumar which has been denied by learned counsel
for the petitioners and submits that as on date no case
is pending against the petitioners except present one.
14. Other connected petitions have been filed by other
persons, since, 26 persons are named in the impugned
FIR in which also Coordinate Bench granted similar
protection.
15. Mr. Virk submits that in other petitions the
custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not
required except the petitioners of WPCRL No. 128 of
2026.
11
16. Since, in the instant petition as well as in the
connected petitions, petitioners are praying for quashing
of impugned FIR dated 12.01.2026, however,
investigating agency sought custodial interrogation of
petitioners of WPCRL No. 128 of 2026 only and stay
vacation application have been served to the learned
counsel for the petitioners on 12.02.2026, therefore, an
opportunity should be given to the petitioners to file
their response to the stay vacation application. So far as
requirement of custodial interrogation is concerned, the
Vacation Judge by order dated 16.01.2026 already
granted interim protection to the petitioners subject to
this condition that they will cooperate with the
investigation as and when required and admittedly the
investigation has not been stayed, therefore, at this
stage instead of custodial interrogation all these
petitioners shall appear before the concerned I.O. for
further interrogation.
17. List this matter on 26.02.2026 on top of the board
along with WPCRL NO. 1534 of 2025. It is made clear
that all these petitioners shall appear before the I.O.
tomorrow at 10:00 am and they will ensure their
presence as and when required and on the next date Mr.
Virk, learned Dy. A.G. shall inform to this Court about
the status of the investigation and by that date counsel
for the petitioners shall ensure to file the response to
stay vacation application.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
Parul
12
