Uttarakhand High Court
Amarjeet Singh And Ors vs State Of Uttarakhand on 21 July, 2026
Office
Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
SL.
Date or COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
directions
and
Registrar's
order with
Signatures
UKHC010125882026
WPCRL/1382/2026
Amarjeet Singh And Ors
--Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. K.S. Bora and Mr. Mohit Kumar
Kashyap, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
2. Mr. Pradeep Lohani, learned A.G.A.
along with Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned
Brief Holder for the State.
3. By means of the present writ petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioners seek issuance of a
writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing
the F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0283 of 2026
dated 20.06.2026, registered at Police
Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh
Nagar, for the offences punishable under
Section 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.
4. In the present case, the impugned
First Information Report has been lodged
by the complainant alleging, inter alia, that
the petitioners had prepared a forged
exchange deed purportedly dated
12.12.2012 by affixing the forged signature
of the complainant’s father thereon. It is
alleged that the complainant’s father had
expired on 22.01.2012 and, therefore, it
was impossible for him to have executed or
signed the said exchange deed on
12.12.2012, thus, on the said premise, the
complainant has alleged that the
petitioners forged the signature of the
deceased and thereby committed fraud.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
would, however, submit that the
allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R.
are wholly false, baseless and
misconceived; that, although the exchange
deed bears the registration date of
12.12.2012, the document was in fact
executed on 06.09.2011, much prior to the
death of the complainant’s father. He
would further submit that the stamp paper
on which the exchange deed was prepared
was also purchased on 06.09.2011, which
is duly borne out from the official record.
Thus, according to the learned counsel, the
execution of the exchange deed took place
during the lifetime of the complainant’s
father, and the allegation of forging the
signature of a deceased person is factually
untenable, therefore, the petitioners are
innocent, have falsely been implicated with
an ulterior motive, and that the impugned
F.I.R. deserves to be quashed qua the
present petitioners.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
7. This Court finds some substance in
the submission made by learned counsel
for the petitioners and having considered
the submissions, this Court is of the view
that this matter definitely requires
deliberation.
8. Issue notice to respondent no.4,
returnable within four weeks.
9. Steps to be taken within a week.
10. List this case after service report is
received.
11. Counter-affidavit be filed by the
State/respondents.
12. Till the next date of listing, as an
interim measure, petitioners shall not be
arrested pursuant to the F.I.R./Case Crime
No. 0283 of 2026 dated 20.06.2026,
registered at Police Station Sitarganj,
District Udham Singh Nagar, provided, the
petitioners co-operate with the
investigation.
13. Stay application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
21-07-2026
mamta
