IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.227 OF 2010 Mohit @ Tinku S/o Jagpal Singh R/o Village Kheri Manihar, P.S. Mawana, District Meerut ………Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through S.S.P., Haridwar, District Haridwar 2. S.H.O., P.S. Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar 3. Ram Bahadur S/o Dhan Bahadur, R/o C-18 Durga Colony, Roorkee, District Haridwar …Respondents Dated: March 31, 2010 Sri Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 2.9.2009 lodged as Case Crime No.391/2009 u/s 380 IPC P.S. Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. In brief the prosecution case is that in the intervening night of 1/2.9.2009, from the Tata Indicom Tower within the area of P.S. Manglaur, 24 Batteries and one Battery Charger was stolen for which the FIR was lodged on 2.9.2009 against unknown persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the present petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and he was not involved in commission of the said crime. Per contra, learned Addl. GA argued that during investigation, co-accused Updesh and Jitendra were arrested, who have disclosed that they committed the aforesaid act along with the present petitioner. He further argued that the present petitioner is habitual of these types of cases. He further submitted that from the possession of co-accused, 14 batteries and one charger is said to be recovered and remaining –10- batteries are yet to be recovered, which are lying with the present petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner in order to save himself from the recovery of the above said batteries, which he is in possession, is not appearing before the police or before the court for the investigation. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as on perusal of FIR and other documents on record and also considering the fact that the petitioner is habitual criminal of these types of cases and he is not appearing for investigation in order to save the recovery of the remaining batteries, which he is in possession and seeing the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief by this Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed summarily. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 31.03.2010 Rajeev Dang