IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No.533 of 2008 With Stay Application No.4287/2008 Bharat Kumar Tripathi aged about 43 years, S/o Sri P.R. Tripathi R/o 2021, Jhansi Road, District Orai, Uttar Pradesh ………….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary & three others ………… Respondents Km. Suniti Sachan, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Dated: July 15, 2008 Heard Km. Suniti Sachan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the first information report dated 28.5.2001 lodged by Respondent No.4 registered as Case Crime No.117/2001 relating to offences punishable under Sections 409/420 I.P.C. with Police Station Lohaghat, District Champawat. A mandamus has also been sought not to give effect to the FIR and not to arrest the petitioner. The FIR appears to have been lodged by Respondent No.4-P.K. Jain who is an Additional Project Manager and Unit In-charge of U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam, against the petitioner who is a Junior Engineer of said corporation. There are allegations of embezzlement of sum amounting more than Rs.25.00 lacs. It further reveals from the FIR that before the report was lodged, a Technical Enquiry Committee also enquired into the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant had grudge against the petitioner who lodged another FIR for showing revolver to him by the petitioner and the petitioner has already been acquitted from the said charge. The order passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (copy of which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition) shows that the acquittal has been recorded only on the ground that there was no threat given to kill the complainant. Also it is observed that departmental enquiry can be initiated against the petitioner for keeping and showing the revolver. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that departmental enquiry is already pending against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that fresh technical enquiry initiated on the request of the petitioner is yet not concluded. Hence, the petitioner should not be arrested in connection with the FIR lodged in the year 2001. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and that of learned brief holder for the State and after going through the contents of the papers on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the investigation of the case. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. (Interim Relief Application No.4287/2008 also stands rejected) (Dharam Veer, J.) (Prafulla C.Pant, J.) 15.07.2008 Rajeev Dang