Reserved on 15.10.2025 Delivered on 15.12.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 745 of 2024 Lily Nath Agarwal .....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …..Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal with Mr. Tribhuwan Phartyal, learned counsel for the Private Respondent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. dated 27.11.2023 being FIR No.0307 of 2023, for the offence punishable under Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC, registered at Police Station Mukhani, District Nainital and further to direct the respondents not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner in pursuance of the abovementioned F.I.R..

2. The Petitioner, Lily Nath Agarwal, is a person of Indian origin and presently a citizen of Australia. She has been residing and working in Sydney since 1990. Her father, Late Badri Nath, inherited ancestral properties situated at Delhi, Haldwani and other locations.

3. Upon the death of the Petitioner’s father on 07.05.2011, the Petitioner and her five siblings, including Respondent No. 4, became joint successors to the ancestral property. Following disagreements within the family, a Panchayat meeting was convened on 12.05.2011, and a unanimous resolution was passed that all properties of Late Kailash Nath, the father of Late Badri Nath, would be equally divided among the legal heirs. Respondent No. 4 did not attend the Panchayat meeting.

4. Several civil litigations ensued among the siblings regarding partition and testamentary rights. These include a partition suit before the Delhi High Court, a testamentary case concerning an alleged will, and mutation proceedings before the District Magistrate. These disputes have been pending for more than a decade.

5. In June 2011, based on a certificate issued by the Gram Pradhan listing all successors of Late Badri Nath, the names of the Petitioner and her four brothers were included in the Family Register maintained under the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rules, 1970. Their names were entered jointly by the Gram Panchayat Development Officer and the Gram Pradhan, who are the competent authorities.

6. On 27.11.2023, nearly twelve years after the Family Register entries, Respondent No. 4 lodged FIR No. 0307 of 2023 at Police Station Mukhani, District Nainital, alleging that the Petitioner had recorded her name in the Family Register prior to her father’s death, shown herself as the head of the family and was attempting to derive property rights on the basis of such entries. The FIR invokes Sections

420 and later 120-B of the IPC.

7. After registration of the FIR, a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was issued via email to one of the Petitioner’s brothers residing abroad, which reflected an appearance date that had already elapsed. The Petitioner thereafter emailed the authorities on 29.05.2024 and 04.06.2024, expressing willingness to cooperate with the investigation and requesting that her statement be recorded through video conferencing as she resides in Australia. No response was received from the investigating agency.

8. The Petitioner asserts that she has not visited India since 2011, that she has not taken any benefit from the Family Register entries, that the entries do not confer title, and that the FIR is motivated by malice in view of the ongoing civil litigations and the advanced stage of evidence in the Delhi High Court. She claims apprehension of arrest on arrival in India, despite there being no elements of cheating or conspiracy against her.

9. Learned counsel for Petitioner submits that the FIR is a clear abuse of process, lodged after an