PAWAN SAINI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs, among others:

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the writ petition.

(3.) It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and has not procured any forged document. No forgery has been committed by the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present writ petition be decided in terms of criminal writ petition no. 69 of 2017 decided on 13.01.2017, Ateek Ahmad vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, to which proposal learned Deputy Advocate General has no objection.