WPCRL/2306/2022 of VIJAY KUMAR YADAV Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

terms of imprisonment of exceeding 7 years and therefore, F.I.R. cannot be quashed. The second bone of contention is that no specific role has been attributed to each of the petitioners. The F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia of all the facts. The contents of the F.I.R. reveal cognizable case under Section 186, 332, 323 and 506 of I.P.C., and therefore, the petitioners have not made out case, even issuance of notice for quashing of the F.I.R. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in this case, the ratio decided in the case of “Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273” is squarely applicable and appropriate order should be passed. The learned Deputy Advocate General for the State on the other hand submits that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already passed that order, then there is no need to pass repeated order. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed in limine being devoid of merits. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) 12.12.2022 (Grant urgent certified copy of this order, as per Rules)A/-

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) (Grant urgent certified copy of this order, as per Rules)