1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 631 of 2011 with Stay Application No. 7674 of 2011 1. Leena Singh W/o Umesh Veer Vikram Singh 2. Km. Divya Singh D/o Umesh Veer Vikram Singh 3. Umesh Veer Vikram Singh S/o Late B.S.Chaudhary All R/o National Farmers Co-operative Ltd. 30/6-A, (Pine Hall Lane), Rajpur Road, Dehradun. …………… Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Ministry of Home, Dehradun. 2. Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun 3. Station House Officer, Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun 4. Devendra Singh Yadav S/o Shri Madhu Ram R/o village Kutubpur, Kusani, P.O. Nivara Sivay, District Saharanpur. …………..Respondents. Shri M.S. Bisht, Advocate, present for the petitioners Shri B.S.Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State. 2 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought quashing of the First Information Report dated 13.07.2011, registered as Crime No. 116 of 2011, relating to offences punishable under section 420, 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun. (3) Serious allegation is made in the First Information Report that the complainant was cheated of ` 5,10,000/-by the petitioners, after promising a job to the wife of the complainant. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that complainant was Sales Representative cum clerk with NAFCO which is registered society of which petitioner no.2 is the Chief Promoter, and petitioner no.3 is Legal 3 Advisor. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner no.3 is father of the petitioner no.2, and husband of petitioner no.1. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that after services of wife of the respondent no.4 (complainant) were terminated the impugned First Information Report was got lodged. However, on perusal of the papers on record, this court finds that Annexure-5 to the writ petition shows that petitioners have taken a contradictory plea that ` 5,10,000/ was paid by Monika Yadav (wife of the respondent no.4) to one Sudhanshu, which indicates that amount in question was paid. (5) In the above circumstances, this court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation of the case. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 7674 of 2011 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.28.07.2011 NP 4