WPCRL/1860/2022 of AJMER SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

respondent no. 3 due to previous enmity with petitioner. It is also not necessary that informant should have certain injury on the action of the accused. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, it is argued that as per Section 157A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act permission can be granted even after the sale deed is executed. But as yet, the petitioner has not applied for the same before District Magistrate, Nainital and if at all any application is pending, the same shall be decided at its own merits by the concerned authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made an alternative prayer that any relief which this Court may deem fit be granted in favour of the petitioner. Learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioner submits that all the offences under Section 468, 471, 420 IPC alleged in this case are not punishable with term exceeding 07 years, therefore, 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. We hope and trust that the Investigating Officer shall not violate the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra). The writ petition stands disposed of. (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) 19.12.2022 (Grant urgent certified copy of this order, as per Rules) SKS