IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1032 of 2009 Gyan Singh and another ………..Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………….Respondents Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioners. Sri S.S. Adhikari, AGA for the respondent nos.1 & 2. Dated: November 30, 2009 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (By the Court) Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioners. Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State. By way of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners have put FIR dated 21.11.2009 arising out case crime No.317/2009 under section 384 IPC P.S. Sahaspur District Dehradun under challenge. Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that this report has been filed with ulterior motive after feeling annoyed from the telecast made by the petitioner No.1. The scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India or scope of Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. While exercising powers in either of the provisions, Court is not supposed to enter into the question of fact or appreciation of evidence. The only thing which is required to be seen by the Court is as to whether contents of the First Information Report make out any prima facie case or not. I have carefully perused the FIR. As per contents of F.I.R. accused/petitioners are demanding Rs.2.50 –Rs.3 Lakhs from their mobile no.9219770792. They are threatening to face consequences in the event of failure to pay the amount demanded. From the contents of FIR, it seems that prima facie case under section 384 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner justifying investigation against them. In view of the above, petition is dismissed summarily. (Alok Singh, J.) 30.11.2009 JKJ