GIRDHARI LAL SAHU ALIAS PAPPU GIRDHARI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010189562026


Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL.
Date

No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS



WPCRL/2167/2026

Girdhari Lal Sahu Alias Pappu Girdhari
--Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. M.S. Pal, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal and
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocates
assisted by Mr. Ramji Shrivastava and Mr.
Nishant Krishna Adhikari, Advocates for the
petitioner.
Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Government
Advocate, Mr. Amrendra Pratap, Additional
Advocate General and Mr. Kuldeep S. Rawal,
learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for
respondent no. 3.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner for quashing the F.I.R./ Case Crime
No.0158 of 2026, under Sections under
Sections 120-B, 323, 420, 467, 468, 471, 495,
498-A, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)( द),
3(1)( ध)
the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Cantt.
District Dehradun. Further prayer has been
made not to arrest the petitioner, pursuant to
the aforesaid F.I.R.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that
respondent no.3 lodged an F.I.R. against the
petitioner, alleging, inter alia, that she belongs
to the Scheduled Caste community and her
marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on
06.07.2004 in accordance with Hindu rites and
customs. It is alleged that, at the time of
marriage, the petitioner concealed the fact that
he was already married and had children from
his previous marriage. The said fact came to the
knowledge of respondent no.3 after a few years
of their marriage. However, considering the

UKHC010189562026


future of her children and upon being
persuaded by her family members, she
continued to reside with the petitioner.
Subsequently, she came to know that the
petitioner was maintaining illicit relationships
with other women. When she objected to the
same, the petitioner allegedly started physically
assaulting and abusing her and also extended
threats of dire consequences. It is further
alleged that, on several occasions, the petitioner
hurled derogatory and caste-related remarks
against respondent no.3 in the presence of the
staff posted at her official residence. It is also
alleged that the petitioner, by forging her
signatures and fabricating documents, falsely
showed her to have retired from the post of
Director of the company, despite the fact that
she had neither submitted any resignation nor
executed any such document. Further,
respondent no.3 allegedly received an audio
recording in which the petitioner was
purportedly heard conversing with a woman
and conspiring to eliminate her. Apprehending
danger to her life and the safety of her minor
children, respondent no.3 lodged the impugned
F.I.R.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case and
has never intended to insult, humiliate or
abuse respondent no.3 by making any caste-
related or caste-indicative remarks. He submits
that the marriage between the parties was
solemnized in the year 2004 and they have
been residing together as husband and wife for
approximately 22 years, during which period no
complaint alleging caste-based abuse or
humiliation was ever made against the
petitioner. Three children have been born out of
the wedlock, which, according to learned Senior
Advocate, demonstrates that the parties had
been leading their matrimonial life together for
a considerable period. It is further submitted
that the petitioner was fully aware of the caste
of respondent no.3 from the inception of their
marriage and, therefore, there was no occasion
for him to have made any caste-related remarks
with an intention to humiliate her. Learned
Senior Advocate contends that the allegations
of caste-based abuse have been introduced
after more than two decades of marriage,
apparently with a view to giving a criminal

UKHC010189562026


colour to what is essentially a matrimonial
dispute arising out of domestic differences
between the parties. He, therefore, submits that
continuation of the criminal proceedings would
amount to an abuse of the process of law and
the impugned F.I.R. deserves to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.3 vehemently opposes the
submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner and submits that the allegations
levelled in the F.I.R. disclose the commission of
cognizable offences. It is contended that the
petitioner has intentionally humiliated
respondent no.3 by making derogatory remarks
relating to her caste. In support of the
allegations concerning the alleged conspiracy to
eliminate respondent no.3, learned counsel has
drawn the attention of this Court to the
transcript of an audio recording purportedly
containing the voice of the petitioner, wherein
he is alleged to have stated, in substance, that
respondent no.3 should be killed and that he
would spend whatever amount of money might
be required for the said purpose. It is submitted
that the authenticity of the audio recording,
identification of the voice, the circumstances in
which the alleged conversation took place and
the evidentiary value of the transcript are all
matters which require investigation and
appreciation of evidence during trial. Learned
counsel further submits that the petitioner’s
attempt to portray the allegations as arising out
of ordinary matrimonial discord is
misconceived, particularly when the F.I.R.
contains specific allegations of physical assault,
caste-based humiliation, forgery and criminal
intimidation. It is, therefore, contended that no
ground for quashing the impugned F.I.R. is
made out.

6. Learned Government Advocate appearing
for the State also opposes the writ petition and
submits that the petitioner is deliberately
evading the process of law and is not
cooperating with the investigating agency. It is
contended that the conduct of the petitioner in
avoiding investigation and failing to cooperate
with the investigating agency disentitles him
from claiming any discretionary or equitable
relief from this Court. Learned Government
Advocate, therefore, submits that the
investigation ought to be permitted to proceed

UKHC010189562026


in accordance with law.

7. This Court has considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the material available
on record. The principles governing the exercise
of jurisdiction by the High Court for quashing
an F.I.R. have been elaborately considered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana
and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, reported
in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The categories
enumerated therein are illustrative and not
exhaustive. The power of quashing is required
to be exercised sparingly and with
circumspection, and only in cases where the
allegations, even if taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie
constitute any offence or where continuation of
the criminal proceedings would otherwise
amount to an abuse of the process of law.

8. The aforesaid principles have
subsequently been reiterated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in M/s Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, reported in AIR 2021
SC 1918, wherein it has been emphasised that
the High Court should ordinarily refrain from
interfering with an investigation and should not
embark upon an enquiry into the merits,
reliability or genuineness of the allegations at
the stage of considering a prayer for quashing
of an F.I.R.

9. A perusal of the impugned F.I.R., which
has been brought on record as Annexure No.1
to the writ petition, reveals that the allegations
are not confined merely to matrimonial discord
or differences between the parties. Apart from
allegations of concealment of the petitioner’s
previous marriage, the F.I.R. contains specific
allegations of physical assault, threats, use of
caste-related derogatory expressions in the
presence of other persons, alleged fabrication of
documents and an alleged conspiracy to cause
the death of respondent no.3. These allegations,
taken cumulatively, cannot, at this preliminary
stage, be brushed aside as mere matrimonial
differences or ordinary domestic altercations.

10. The contention of learned Senior
Advocate that the parties have remained
married for approximately 22 years and that no

UKHC010189562026


complaint of caste-based humiliation was
lodged during the earlier period of their
matrimonial relationship, by itself, cannot be a
ground to discard the allegations made in the
impugned F.I.R. The mere fact that the parties
continued their matrimonial relationship for a
considerable period would not necessarily
negate the possibility of subsequent acts of
cruelty, intimidation or humiliation. Similarly,
the fact that respondent no.3 was aware of the
petitioner’s alleged previous marriage at some
point during their matrimonial relationship
does not, by itself, render the other allegations
levelled in the F.I.R. inherently improbable.
Whether the alleged caste-related remarks were
actually made, whether the same were uttered
with the requisite intention or knowledge, and
whether the statutory ingredients of the
offences alleged under the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, are attracted, would
depend upon the precise words allegedly used,
the place and circumstances in which they were
uttered, the presence of witnesses and other
relevant material collected during investigation.
These are factual aspects which cannot
appropriately be determined by this Court by
undertaking a meticulous examination of the
allegations in proceedings for quashing.

11. So far as the alleged audio recording is
concerned, the petitioner cannot seek quashing
of the F.I.R. merely by disputing its authenticity
or the identity of the voice allegedly recorded
therein. The genuineness of the recording, its
source, the identity of the persons conversing,
the context of the conversation and its
admissibility and evidentiary value are matters
which require appropriate investigation and, if
necessary, examination during trial.

12. Further, the allegations regarding alleged
forgery of respondent no.3’s signatures and
fabrication of documents to show her
retirement from the post of Director of the
company also constitute matters requiring
investigation. The genuineness of the
documents, the signatures appearing thereon,
the person responsible for their preparation
and use, and the circumstances in which the
alleged documents came into existence are
matters which cannot be adjudicated upon in
the present proceedings. Furthermore, the

UKHC010189562026


complainant has reiterated the averments made
in the FIR in her statement recorded under
Section 180 BNSS. Moreover, one Arvind Gupta
has stated that in his testimony recorded under
Section 180 BNSS that on the behest of the
petitioner, he prepared the resignation letter of
respondent no. 3 and also the other documents
relating to her relinquishment from the
directorship of the firms.

13. It is well settled that the High Court,
while exercising its jurisdiction for quashing an
F.I.R., is not required to conduct a mini-trial or
appreciate the evidence as to whether the
allegations are ultimately likely to result in
conviction.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the
allegations contained in the impugned F.I.R.,
taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety, prima facie disclose the commission of
cognizable offences.

15. Consequently, this Court does not find
any good ground to interfere with the impugned
F.I.R. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.



(Alok Mahra, J.)
03-11-2026
SB







SHIKSHA
BINJOLA
Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd 40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283 D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.11.03 19:55:10 +05'30'