Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/905/2026 of NIJAMOUDIN Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 1 June 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL No. 905 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Mohit Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Tumul
2026:UHC:4364
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPCRL No. 905 of 2026
Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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.
1. Mr. Mohit Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. By the instant petition the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 06.05.2026 being FIR No. 0122 of 2026, for the offences punishable under section 420 of IPC Police Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar (contained as Annexure no. 1, page 23 to 29 to this writ petition). ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with impugned First Information Report dated 06.05.2026 being FIR No. 0122 of 2026, for the offences punishable under section 420 of IPC Police Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar (contained as Annexure no. 1, page 23 to 29 to this writ petition).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences as alleged in the FIR against the petitioners are punishable for less than seven years, therefore, I.O. should follow the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC
273.
5. Learned State counsel have no objection on this and also submits that the offences as alleged are punishable for less than seven years, therefore, the I.O. concerned is under legal obligation to follow the guidelines formulated in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).
6. In such view of the matter, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the I.O. concerned to follow the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and issue appropriate notices while
2026:UHC:4364 conducting the investigation.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 01.06.2026 PR