1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 474 of 2011 with Stay Application No. 5810 of 2011 Shri Sunil Dahiya S/o Shri Dalel Singh R/o Village and Post Office Nahri, District Sonipat, Haryana …………… Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through the Secretary of Home Uttarakhand Govt. Dehradun. 2. Senior Superintendent of Police, District Nainital 3. S.H.O., P.S Mukteshwar District Nainital 4. Shri Sumit S/o Shri Anand Swaroop R/o 168-A, Main Bazar Bawana, Delhi. …………..Respondents. Shri Manmohan Tiwari, Advocate, present for the applicant Shri M.A.Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. 2 Heard. (2) By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of the First Information Report dated 05.03.2011, registered as F.I.R. No.4/2011, relating to offences punishable under section 304B and 498A I.P.C., and one punishable under section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Mukteshwar, District Nainital. (3) The petitioner is husband of the deceased. In the First Information Report it is specifically alleged that the deceased rang at 12.30 noon to her mother informing her, that her husband Sunil was quarreling with her, and threatening to push her from a hillock. Admittedly, the deceased had died after falling from a hilly terrain. It is alleged in the First Information Report that the deceased was subjected to harassment due to demand of dowry by her husband. 3 (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the petitioner is innocent. It is further pleaded that it is hard to believe during honeymoon period the petitioner could have done such a crime. It is also submitted that no complaint was filed earlier relating to demand of dowry. (5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the State, this court is of the view that the factual disputes can not be examined by this court, in its writ jurisdiction, and considering the nature of offence, without expressing any opinion as to merits of the case, this court is of the view, that it is not a fit case to interfere with the investigation of the case. (6) Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. Stay Application No. 5810 of 2011 also stands dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.16.06.2011 NP 4