GURPAL SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010200362026
2026:UHC:10229
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Criminal No. 2275 of 2026
th
04 November, 2026
Gurpal Singh
--Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Robin David Ratnakar, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Jafri and Ms.
Vandana Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned AGA for the State.
Mr. Karan Anand, learned Counsel for the Caveator.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This writ petition has been filed by petitioner
seeking a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the FIR No.0276 of 2026 dated 14.09.2026
under Sections 120-B, 420 and 467 of IPC registered at
P.S. Doiwala, District Dehradun.
2. The facts of the case are that the dispute arises
out of certain immovable property situated at Mauza
Majri Grant, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun. The
petitioner claims to have purchased the property through
a registered sale-deed dated 24.09.2019 which was
executed in his favour by the legal heirs of late Sh.
Pancham Singh. Subsequently, petitioner’s name was
mutated in the revenue records vide order dated
28.10.2021. The informant challenged the subsequent
property transactions and mutation proceedings before
the revenue authorities. Thereafter, on the basis of report
dated 06.07.2026, the impugned FIR was registered
against the petitioner and other accused persons,
1
UKHC010200362026
2026:UHC:10229
alleging offences relating to criminal conspiracy, cheating
and forgery in connection with the aforesaid property
transactions. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner has
approached this Court contending that the dispute is
essentially civil in nature and that the criminal
proceedings have been initiated with an ulterior motive.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of petitioner submitted that the impugned FIR is an
abuse of process of law, inasmuch as the dispute
essentially pertains to the title and transfer of immovable
property, which has already been the subject matter of
proceedings before the revenue authorities. It was
contended that the petitioner had lawfully purchased the
property through a registered sale deed and his name
was duly mutated in the revenue records. The informant,
having failed to obtain relief in the revenue proceedings,
has resorted to criminal proceedings with an ulterior
motive to harass the petitioner.
4. It was further contended on behalf of petitioner
that the allegations levelled in the FIR do not disclose the
commission of the alleged offences and further, that the
essential ingredients of cheating, forgery or criminal
conspiracy are not made out against the petitioner.
Initiation of the criminal proceedings, therefore, would
amount to misuse of the criminal justice system. Learned
counsel also highlighted that the petitioner is about 78
years of age and is suffering from End-Stage Renal
Disease, requiring regular haemodialysis, and submitted
that the impugned proceedings are causing undue
hardship to him. Accordingly, it was prayed that the FIR
be quashed.
2
UKHC010200362026
2026:UHC:10229
5. Learned Counsel who has appeared on behalf
of Caveator has produced documents which show that
the petitioner had sold around 70 properties in or near
Rishikesh, Dehradun between 2019 to 2026 by himself,
through his wife Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur and his son
Sukhwinder Singh by Power of Attorney. He also laid
emphasis on the point that the aforesaid properties were
sold by petitioner within a short span of 7 years and
therefore, it appears that petitioner is not a bona fide
purchaser. To buttress his arguments, learned Counsel
has also supplied documents to reflect the land/
properties sold by petitioner. The said document is taken
on record. He further states that the petitioner is a land
mafia and is in a habit of purchasing disputed properties
at a meager rate than the prevailing market rate and
subsequent selling them on sky-rocketed prices. He
purchased the property sold to informant, having full
knowledge that it had already been sold to informant by
late Pancham Singh and his sons on 24.05.2013 through
registered sale-deed.
6. Learned State Counsel also adopted the
analogy of learned Counsel for the Caveator, and he
submitted that the allegations levelled against the
petitioner are very serious in nature and therefore this is
not a very fit case for quashing or to grant any sort of
relief to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the State
emphasized that it may be part of land Scam prevalent in
District Dehradun.
7. Having heard the learned counsels for the
parties and upon perusal of material on record this court
is of the considered opinion that in view of the fact that
3
UKHC010200362026
2026:UHC:10229
land scams are prevalent in District Dehradun, and also
considering the fact that the petitioner has many
properties near Dehradun and he very frequently dealt
with sale and purchase of many properties, it raises a
suspicion in the matter which can only be clarified after a
proper investigation. Therefore, this Court does not deem
it fit to exercise its powers under Article 226 to quash the
impugned FIR.
8. Since, the offence alleged against the petitioner
is very serious in nature, talks about conspiracy in sale-
purchase of land during span of 2013-2019, and a prima
facie case is made out against the petitioner, it is
essential for the ends of justice that the petitioner should
be subjected to a proper investigation. Sale of 70
properties in a very short span of 7 years also reflects the
seriousness of allegations levelled against the petitioner.
It is also a matter to be verified during investigation as
from where the petitioner has got such large parcel of
land to sell.
9. Insofar as the argument put forth by learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the
allegations levelled against petitioner are civil in nature,
this Court is of the firm view that civil transaction may
have criminal trappings, if someone alleges cheating,
forgery and conspiracy in those civil transactions.
Accordingly, the said submission is discarded.
10. Recently, in the case of
Neeharika
Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401,
it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that High
Court would be justified in passing an interim order of
4
UKHC010200362026
2026:UHC:10229
stay of investigation and/or ‘no coercive steps to be
adopted’ during pendency of petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India as under: -
“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;
33.9 The functions of the judiciary and the police
are complementary, not overlapping;
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 case of 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
5
UKHC010200362026
2026:UHC:10229
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 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.”
11. After keeping the above principle in mind, this
Court is of the opinion that prima-facie case is made out
against the petitioner and this Court, at this stage,
cannot enter into the merits of first information report.
Veracity of version of prosecution can only be proved
6
UKHC010200362026
2026:UHC:10229
upon conducting of investigation by the Investigating
Officer in accordance with due process of law.
12. Permitting such type of offences certainly
cause common people tend to suffer in the event of
purchasing such properties.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
( Pankaj Purohit, J .)
04.11.2026
Rdang
Digitally signed by RAJEEV DANG
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=963da6fc6df8dbb91944e0c58b9ed259ec3d800f419a1199f1
5a3961c8ca2957, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=63F6E663A1DD44892EED6B81F043D778B37D74D2DB
7200F2DABC7ABCC1CA358D, cn=RAJEEV DANG
Date: 2026.11.05 19:31:12 +05'30'
RAJEEV DANG
7