Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/1440/2026 of VIKAS SINGH BISHT Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 24 July 2026
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010129512026 2026:UHC:6314 UKHC010129512026 WPCRL/1440/2026 Vikas Singh Bisht --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010129512026
2026:UHC:6314
UKHC010129512026 WPCRL/1440/2026 Vikas Singh Bisht --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned AGA, for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. By the instant petition, the petitioner – Vikas Singh Bisht, is praying for quashing of FIR dated 02.07.2026 bearing FIR No.65 of 2026, Police Station Kotwali Almora, District Almora, which was lodged against unknown person for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 115 (2), 281, 324 (4), 351 (3) and 352 of BNS, 2023.
4. The instant petition is moved for quashing of this FIR on the ground that no such incident was happened and there is no certain CCTV footages of the alleged incident and the FIR has been lodged with the malafide intent, and therefore, be quashed.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is not named in the FIR, and so far as the contents of the FIR is concerned which certainly discloses cognizable offence, and therefore, it requires thorough investigation, therefore, at this juncture, there is no any question for quashing the FIR, since it prima facie discloses the cognizable offences, and therefore, the petitioner cannot make out a case for quashing of the FIR. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not named in the FIR, and in such an eventuality, at this juncture, when the petitioner is not named in the FIR if any interim protection is granted to the petitioner, it amounts to an interference with the investigation, which is wholly unwarranted.
6. In view of the discussion and observations as above, the instant writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit, however, the dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the right of the petitioner to avail any such remedy if there is any such apprehension or cause of action arise. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
24.07.2026 Nitesh/