IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 1109 (M/B) of 2006 Bhoodev Singh s/o Sri Narain Singh, R/o Village Pandari, Kichcha Road, Sitarganj, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar …… Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Senior Superintendent of Police, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Station House Officer, Police Station, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 4. Bhajan Singh Tulera, Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar …… Respondents …………. Sri M.C.Kandpal, Senior Counsel with Sri S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri D.K.Sharma, Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) Sri M.C.Kandpal, the learned Senior Counsel with Sri S. S. Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri D.K.Sharma, the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1, 2 and 3. 2. Petitioner Bhoodev Singh has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the F.I.R. dated 31.08.2006 lodged at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar U/S 420 of I.P.C. in Case Crime No. 4484/2006 (Annexure no.2 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities that the respondent authorities may not arrest, harass or take any coercive method against the petitioner. (iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest for his alleged involvement in Crime No. 4484 of 2006 registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar for the alleged commission of the offence punishable U/s 420 I.P.C. 4. The First Information Report lodged against the petitioner reads as follows: “ udy rgjhj fgUnh rIe’kqnk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ lsok esa Fkkuk v/;{k dksrokyh dk’khiqj egksn; ftykf/kdkjh m/keflag uxj }kjk dk;kZy; i= la[;k 14727@15 ,0t0,0@2006 fnukad tqykbZ 13] 2006 ls miftykf/kdkjh dk’khiqj dks lEcksf/kr i= ls funsZf’kr fd;k fd Hkwnso flag iq= ukjk;.k flag fuoklh xzke vkliqj uglhy tliqj us miftykf/kdkjh dk’khiqj dh QthZ eksgj o gLrk{kj cukdj Lo;a LFkk;h fuokl izek.k i= la 20273 fnukad 25-2-2004 Lo;a gh tkjh dj fn;k gS ;g Hkh funsZ’k fn;s x;s fd Hkwnso flag ds fo:} izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ,d izfr muds dk;kZy; ds miyC/k djk;h tk;s mDr i= ds dze esa miftykf/kdkjh dk’khiqj }kjk dk;Zky; i= la0 ,l0Vh0 2006 izk0 i0 fnukad 24-8-2006 rnuqlkj funsZ’k rglhynkj dk’khiqj dks fn;s x;s mDr i= ij rglhynkj }kjk fn;s x;s funsZ’ksak ds dze esa mDr Hkwnso }kjk tkjh QthZ LFkk;h fuokl izek.k i= la[;k 20273 fnukad 25-2- 2004 ds lEcU/k esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ dj dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djsaA layXud vkns’k dh izfr;kWa 8 fnukad 30-8-2006 Hktu flag rqysjk uk;c rglhynkj gLrk{kj vifBr eqnzk uk0 rglhynkj dk’khiqj m/keflag uxjA uksV%& eSa 926 vks ih izekf.kr djrk gWwa fd gktk ij 'kCn vafdr dh x;h gS dksbZ 'kCn c<+k;k ugha x;k gSA** 5. On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the serious nature of the allegations against the petitioner, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of any of the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition. 6. The writ petition therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. 7. With the above order, CLMA No. 11403 of 2006 also stands dismissed. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C. J.) 06.09.2006 06.09.2006 A