IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 369 OF 2008 Ramwati W/o Sh. Milkha Singh, R/o H. No. 10/3, Govind Nagar, Police Station-Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar. …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & three others ………Respondents Dated: 21 st May, 2008 Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nandan Arya, learned AGA for the State/ respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 as well as Sri Arvind Vashistha, learned counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation/respondent no.4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinvestigate the Case Crime No. 195/2003, relating to the offence punishable under Section 364 I.P.C. registered with Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, by entrusting the same to Central Bureau of Investigation. From a perusal of the papers on record, it appears that First Information Report was lodged by complainant/petitioner against Satya Prakash Barchiwal, Monu & Santosh Kumar, alleging that complainant’s son Virendra Singh is not traceable since October 2002. She suspected that the aforesaid three accused had abducted Virendra Singh. It appears that on the basis of the First Information Report, police investigated the crime and submitted final report with the findings that petitioner’s son could not bear the stress of training in the Army, where he was recruited and got himself admitted in the Military Hospital and from there he escaped. The Army declared him absconder. It is further concluded by the Investigating Officer that he was not abducted by anyone. With these findings, the Investigating Officer made recommendation that a case should be registered against the complainant under Section 182 I.P.C. It appears that on receipt of the final report by the Magistrate, the complainant filed her protest petition and reinvestigation was directed. Again after reinvestigation, final report was submitted and finally on fresh protest petition, the Magistrate took cognizance in the matter as a complaint case. The Magistrate is seized with the matter. The steps taken by the Magistrate are in accordance with law. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the matter. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 21.05.2008 Arti