BUNTY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.103 of 2023, dtd. 9/7/2023, under Ss. 420, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Kathgodam, District Nainital, with related reliefs.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) It appears that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.3, the informant, who is the husband of the petitioner. In a proceedings initiated by the informant, summons were issued to the petitioner. The FIR records that the online tracking report has revealed that the notices had already been served on the petitioner, but when the informant reached in the court, he found that, in fact, the envelope had been received unserved. The FIR records that, subsequently, it was revealed that the tracking report was changed. The summons had already been taken out from the envelope and it must have been done by the postman and the petitioner.