Petitioners granted interim protection from arrest pending response, subject to cooperation with investigation.

The petitioners instituted criminal writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of FIR/Case Crime No. 0129 of 2026, registered at Police Station Lalkuan, District Nainital, under Sections 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and seeking protection from arrest

The petitioner in WPCRL No. 1833 of 2026 claimed to be the legally wedded wife of respondent no. 4, with whom she had a son.

It was submitted that both parties had previously been married and that the daughters from respondent no. 4’s earlier marriage were residing with the petitioner.

The petitioner alleged that the FIR was false and had been lodged as a counterblast to matrimonial proceedings.

Divorce proceedings under Section 25 of the Uniform Civil Code were stated to have been instituted on 24 February 2026, while the alleged incident in the FIR occurred on 28 August 2025.

The petitioners in WPCRL No. 1843 of 2026, described as the complainant’s father-in-law and mother-in-law, asserted that they had been falsely implicated through omnibus allegations.

The petitioner in WPCRL No. 1844 of 2026, described as the complainant’s brother-in-law, contended that he was not present at the place of occurrence and that no specific overt act had been attributed to him.

The High Court considered the petitions at the admission/interim stage and directed issuance of notice to respondent no. 4.

Whether the FIR/Case Crime No. 0129 of 2026, registered under Sections 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the BNS, warranted quashing under Article 226 on the ground that it arose from a matrimonial dispute and contained false, omnibus or factually incorrect allegations?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to interim protection from arrest pending consideration of their challenge to the FIR?

The Court exercised its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to the petitioners’ prayers for a writ of certiorari quashing the FIR and a writ of mandamus restraining arrest.

The FIR invoked Sections 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court applied the interim-relief principle that, where the allegations and surrounding circumstances disclose an apparent matrimonial dispute and the matter requires the respondents’ response, the Court may defer final consideration and grant conditional protection from arrest without expressing any opinion on the merits.

No precedent was cited or applied in the order.

The Court noted the petitioners’ contentions that the prosecution arose from matrimonial discord, that the alleged occurrence predated the divorce proceedings, and that the allegations against the in-laws and brother-in-law were omnibus or lacked specific attribution.

These circumstances were considered sufficient, at the prima facie stage, to warrant a response from the respondents before the Court proceeded further.

However, the Court did not determine whether the FIR was false, whether the allegations were legally sufficient, or whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process.

Instead, balancing the pending challenge with the need for investigation, it granted temporary protection from arrest subject to the petitioners’ cooperation with the investigation.

It issued notice to respondent no. 4 in each petition, directed that steps for service be taken within one week, permitted the State to file a counter-affidavit, and directed that the matters be listed after receipt of the service report.

As an interim measure, the petitioners were directed not to be arrested in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 0129 of 2026 until the next date of listing, provided that they cooperate with the investigation.

The interim-relief applications were accordingly disposed of.