Judgment Reserved on: 20.11.2025 Judgment Pronounced on:23.12.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (Criminal) No.812 of 2024 Anoop Agrawal and Ors ......Petitioners Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Ors. …..Respondents Presence Mr. P.N. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aditya Singh, Mr. Alok Kumar Pandey, Mr. Aakash Sanyal, learned counsel for the Petitioners.

Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Piyush Garg, Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, learned counsel for the Respondent.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present writ petition has been instituted by the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Miscellaneous Application No. 630 of 2021, whereby an application moved by Respondent No. 3 under Section 156(3) CrPC was allowed, leading to registration of FIR No. 0601 of 2022 dated 23.09.2022 at Police Station Kashipur for offences under Sections

420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

2. The genesis of the dispute lies in eleven registered sale deeds executed between the years 1997 and 2009 by late Shri Mahesh Kumar Agrawal in favour of the Petitioners. The earliest sale deed is dated 27.03.1997, nine sale deeds were executed in the year 2004, and the last sale deed was executed in the year 2009. All the said sale deeds are registered documents.

3. Late Shri Mahesh Kumar Agrawal, the executant of the sale deeds, expired in the year 2010. Respondent No. 3 is his widow. For more than a decade after the death of the executant, no civil proceedings were initiated challenging the validity, execution or genuineness of the sale deeds.

4. On 18.08.2021, Respondent No. 3 submitted a written complaint at Police Station Kashipur alleging that the sale deeds in question were forged and had been executed by impersonation. The complaint was also forwarded to the Senior Superintendent of Police. No FIR was registered pursuant thereto.

5. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section

156(3) CrPC before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, seeking a direction for registration of an FIR against the Petitioners.

6. The said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 30.11.2021, recording a prima facie finding that no cognizable offence was made out and that the allegations appeared to be civil in nature.

7. Aggrieved by the said rejection, Respondent No. 3 approached this Court by filing WPCRL No. 38 of 2022. By judgment dated 18.08.2022, this Court set aside the order dated 30.11.2021 and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for fresh consideration, with a specific direction to examine the documents relied upon by the complainant and to pass a reasoned speaking order.

8. Upon remand, the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order dated

20.09.2022, allowed the application under Section 156(3) CrPC and directed registration of an FIR, pursuant to which FIR No. 0601 of

2022 was registered on 23.09.2022.

9. The Petitioners thereafter approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. During the pendency of the proceedings, interim protection from arrest was granted, subject to cooperation with the investigation.

10. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 suffers from complete non- application of judicial mind and is a mechanical reiteration passed in disregard of the directions issued by this Court in WPCRL No. 38 of

2022.

11. It was contended that the learned Magistrate failed to examine the effect of the registered sale deeds, despite a specific mandate to do so. All eleven sale deeds are registered instruments executed over a span of twelve years, and there is no report from the office of the Sub Registrar suggesting impersonation or forgery at the time of registration.

12. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submit