IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 569 of 2006 Mahendra Jaiswal ……… Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……… Respondents. Mr. Swapnil Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. S.S. Bhandari, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Nandan Arya, Assistant Government Advocate (Govt. of Uttarakhand) for respondent No. 1. Date of Order: 18.03.2011 BARIN GHOSH, CHIEF JUSTICE Restoration Application No. 10 of 2011 Delay Condonation Application No. 15 of 2011 The First Information Report alleged that the applicant came to murder his wife, but could not succeed in doing so. In the body of the application, it is the case of the applicant that the story so made out in the First Information Report is false and concocted. It is stated that the properties stand in the name of the wife, who persuaded the applicant to purchase the same in her name. The reason for concoction is to grab those properties. At the same time, it has been alleged that the city was polluted by the wife of the applicant and the applicant is still in possession of C.D. to demonstrate how the pollution took place. From these allegations, in the backdrop of the counter affidavit, no prudent person can come to the conclusion that the First Information Report was lodged maliciously. 2. That being the situation, there is no scope of interference. I, therefore, refuse to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration of the restoration application and, accordingly, dismiss the same. Consequentially, the restoration application too stands dismissed. (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 18.03.2011 Amit