IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 991 of 2004 Sunil Kumar Chaudhary, S/O Sri Ram Naresh Chaudhary, R/O Village Chawani, Police Station Padrauna, District Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, presently Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, District- Dehradun. …Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and five others. … Respondents. Ms. Prabha Noliyal and Ms. Anjali Noliyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Amit Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State. Date 20th October 2008 Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C.Pant, J. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the investigation in pursuance of F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 41/2004 P.S. Vasant Vihar, District Dehradun under Section 13(1)(D) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and all subsequent proceedings arising out of it. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent nos. 2 to 4 from investigating the Case 41/2004 P.S. Vasant Vihar, District Dehradun under Section 13(1)(D) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. (iii) To issue a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in Case Crime No. 41/2004 P.S. Vasant Vihar, District Dehradun under Section 13(1)(D) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. 2 (iv) To issue any suitable writ, order or direction in any nature which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case. (v) To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. In view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, we are not inclined to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioner. (Apart from this during her submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the petitioner has already been acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, during the pendency of this writ petition.) For the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition is dismissed. (B.S.Verma, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 20-10-2008 RCP 3 4