Arun Patel vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner impugning the FIR No. 00307 of 2026 dated 10.09.2026, under Section 302 of IPC registered with Police Station Kotwali Haldwani, District Nainital lodged by respondent no.4.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the wife of the petitioner consumed poison on 24.11.2023. The First Information Report was lodged by the petitioner in Police Station Haldwani, District Nainital on 29.11.2023, after five days of the incident when he allegedly found a suicide note in the house and requested the police to do investigation in the matter.

The FIR lodged by the petitioner was under Section 306 of IPC. In the said FIR the investigation resulted into filing of the charge-sheet against the sister of his wife and her husband, namely, Ms. Kanchan Swami and Mr. Subhash Chand Swami. The charge-sheet was submitted against them under Section 306 of IPC.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ms. Kanchan Swami and her husband Mr. Subhash Chand Swami were harassing the wife of the petitioner due to some cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act which were instituted by the wife of the petitioner. Charge-sheet submitted in the FIR lodged the petitioner is Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

The charge-sheet was submitted on 20.02.2026. The impugned FIR was lodged against the petitioner on the order passed by the learned Additional, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, on 27.04.2024 on application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. filed by respondent no.4 on 20.01.2024.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned First Information Report was lodged after the petitioner lodged the FIR regarding the death/suicide of his wife and therefore, he submits that the petitioner was roped in the incident due to malafide intention of respondent no.4 to save her daughter and her son-in-law from the clutches of the justice.

Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that impugned First Information Report was lodged by her on 25.11.2023 immediately after the alleged suicide of the daughter on 24.11.2023. But, when the FIR was not lodged, the respondent no.4 was left with no option but to move the application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.

Learned State Counsel submits that the facts of both the FIRs are altogether different, and therefore, the contention made by the petitioner that the incident mentioned in the subsequent FIR which was lodged after the order passed by the Additional, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, is similar to the FIR lodged by him, are totally incorrect.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and having perused the record, this Court finds that the case is of serious nature and therefore, no interference is required in the matter. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned FIR was lodged subsequent to the FIR lodged by the petitioner is found fallacious on the basis of the record. The respondent no.4 has lodged the FIR on 25.11.2023 but on the said application, the case was not registered which resulted into filing an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and it is only after the order passed by the Additional, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, on 27.04.2024, the impugned FIR was lodged. Thus, this Court feels that no interference is required. Accordingly, the criminal writ petition is dismissed.