IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.375 OF 2010 WITH STAY APPLICATION NO.3826 OF 2010 1. Sonu 2. Ravinder ……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & two others ……… Respondents Dated: June 8, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the First Information Report, registered at Police Station Ranipur, District Haridwar as Case Crime No.45 of 2010 relating to offences punishable under Sections 392 and 411 of IPC. A further mandamus has been sought commanding the respondent nos.1 and 2 not to arrest the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid crime during the pendency of this writ petition. In brief, the prosecution story is that complainant Prakash lodged a report in the Police Station Ranipur stating that on 8.2.2010 at about 1:05 PM the complainant withdrew Rs.6.5 Lacs from P.N.B. Bank, Shivalik Nagar. 2 When he came out from the gate of the bank, two unknown persons looted his money and when he chased them, they showed Tamancha to him and ran away. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not named in the FIR and two unknown persons, against whom report was lodged by the complainant, have been arrested by the police. He argued that the present petitioners are not involved in the alleged crime and they have been falsely implicated in the said case. Contrary to this, learned Additional Government Advocate argued that although initially the FIR was lodged against two persons only but in fact there were four accused who committed the said crime. He further argued that during the course of investigation, the I.O. collected credible evidence against the present petitioners, which clearly proves their involvement in commission of alleged crime along with two other co-accused persons. In support of the arguments, learned Addl. GA has annexed the statement of complainant Prakash along with the counter affidavit, who has clearly stated in his statement that on 10.4.2010 when other co- accused persons, namely, Nishu @ Ajeet and Anuj Chaudhary were arrested by the Police, they disclosed the name of present petitioners in the commission of aforesaid crime. They told that the person who snatched the bag from the complainant was petitioner no.1 Sonu and petitioner no.2 Ravindra was also involved in the said crime, who had entered inside the bank with the complainant and whose pictures are captured in C.C.T.V. recording of the bank. He stated that in fact four persons were involved in the said crime. Perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as the statement of complainant Prakash prima facie indicates that on 8.2.2010 present petitioners had also participated to 3 commit loot of Rs.6.5 Lacs from the complainant along with two other co-accused persons. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief at this stage. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. (Stay Application No.3826 of 2010 is also dismissed). (Dharam Veer, J.) 08.06.2010 RG