Shreya Sawhney v. State of Uttarakhand

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS

ABA/804/2025

Shreya Sawhney --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Piyush Garg and Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶2Mr. N.S. Kanyal, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Pramod Tiwari, learned Brief Holder for the State.

¶3Mr. S.K. Shandilya, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

¶4By means of present application, applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No.39 of 2025 registered at Police Station Jhabreda, Haridwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(2), and 352 of B.N.S.

¶5As per the allegations contained in the First Information Report dated

04.02.2025, the applicant represented herself to be the owner of the land situated at Sugar Mill, Iqbalpur. It is alleged that she informed the informant that the said property was mortgaged with the bank against an outstanding loan of ₹3,00,00,000/- and that, after obtaining the requisite permission from

bank, she would execute an agreement to sell in his favour. In support of her representation, she allegedly showed certain loan documents indicating that outstanding liability over the property was ₹3,00,00,000/-. Relying upon the aforesaid representation, the informant allegedly paid a total sum of ₹9,00,00,000/- to the applicant and the co-accused towards the proposed sale transaction. It is further alleged that the applicant assured the informant that the sale deed would be executed upon clearance of the bank dues. Subsequently, the informant allegedly came to know that actual outstanding liability of the bank over the said property was approximately ₹90,00,00,000/- and not ₹3,00,00,000/- as represented. It is further alleged that although applicant issued certain cheques towards repayment of the amount received, she subsequently instructed the bank to stop payment of the said cheques.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the dispute between parties emanates from a transaction relating to the proposed sale and purchase of immovable property and is essentially civil in nature, arising out of financial dealings between the parties. It is further submitted that during the pendency of present anticipatory bail application, the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and entered into a compromise/settlement dated

20.05.2026 and a copy of the said

settlement has been brought on record by way of a supplementary affidavit; that, in view of the settlement, it is contended that no surviving grievance remains between parties and, therefore, the present anticipatory bail application has been rendered infructuous.

¶7Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 fairly submits that he does not dispute the factum of the compromise/settlement dated

20.05.2026 entered into between the parties.

¶8Both the learned counsel jointly submit that in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between parties, the present anticipatory bail application may be disposed of accordingly.

¶9Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute by way of the compromise/ settlement dated 20.05.2026, which has been placed on record, no further orders are required to be passed in the present anticipatory bail application. Accordingly, anticipatory bail application stands disposed of.

¶10All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Alok Mahra, J.) 31-07-2026 mamta

MA MTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e 584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebb d642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd 54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a19 1648ab5d8dd004efti, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.07.31 18:29:14 +05'30'