Investigating authorities must conduct inquiries transparently and without bias, while defendants should cooperate with the investigation and refrain from jeopardizing it through public statements.

Judgment :

Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Instant matter was heard at length on 19.03.2026 and the State counsel raised serious objections in respect of relief (ii) to (iv) and pointed out that two First Information Reports have already been registered on the complaint of petitioner no. 1 but this fact has been suppressed though Mr. Navnish Negi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that no information has been given to the petitioner no. 1 with regard to the registration of subsequent FIR. On such submission, learned State counsel was directed to handover both the FIRs to Mr. Navnish Negi so that he may address why he has suppressed the fact about registration of two FIR on the complaint of petitioner no. 1. Apart from this, he was also directed to get instruction how much donations petitioner no. 1 has received.

2. Today, Mr. Navnish Negi argued in reference to relief no. 1 that the impugned FIR has been lodged in a partisan manner in order to harass and victimize the petitioners who infact intervene to protect a Muslim Shopkeeper from communal intimidation and with malafide intent in connivance with police officials the impugned FIR has been lodged and as such the same be quashed.

3. Apart from this, Mr. Navnish Negi argued that impugned FIR is liable to be quashed since prima-facie from the contents of the FIR no cognizable offence is made out.

4. In reference to relief (ii) Mr. Navnish Negi submits that registration of two subsequent FIRs dated 08.02.2026 bearing FIR No. 0025 of 2026 and FIR dated 11.02.2026 bearing FIR No. 0028 of 2026 are nothing but an eyewash since those persons against whom the petitioner no. 1 made complaint are not shown as an accused, which itself reveals that the police officials anyhow want to save them and are in hand in glove with those who are infact main culprit and submits that there is no suppression of fact with regard to registration of two subsequent FIRs since, there was no such communication to the petitioner no. 1.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that relief (iii) and (iv) have been sought because the petitioners have been implicated with malafide intent in collusion with police officials and this is the reason that by relief (iii) petitioners are praying for adequate police protection to them as well as to their families since there are regular threat perception to the petitioners.

6. In reference to relief (iv) Mr. Navnish Negi submits that the petitioners are praying for departmental enquiry against the erring police officials since they were in connivance with the persons against whom petitioner no. 1 made complaint.

7. He also submits that consequential relief as sought by virtue of relief (ii) to (iv) have no impact in any manner with the ongoing investigation.

8. In response to the submissions of Mr. Navnish Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State seriously object on relief (iii) and (iv) and submits that the petitioners are facing the investigation pursuant to the impugned FIR, therefore, they cannot ask for police protection. She further argued that since the petitioners are under investigation therefore, the police officials are also very cautious about their safety and this is the reason, they have been provided police protection from 03.02.2026 to 13.03.2026 and this fact has been suppressed by the petitioners in this petition.

9. Apart from this, learned Brief Holder for the State submits that “gymnasium” owned by the petitioner is located only at a distance of 100 meter from the concerned police