IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL STAY APPLICATION NO.4844 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.481 OF 2010 Surendra Singh ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ……… Respondents Dated: June 22, 2010 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Heard Mr. K.S. Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Amit Bhatt, Additional Government Advocate for the State and also perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. No.82 of 2010, registered at Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, relating to offences punishable under Sections 366, 323, 120-B of IPC. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Mamta lodged a report at P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar on 27.5.2010 with the averments that on 26.5.2010 at 11 AM she along with Smt. Haseen Jahan had gone to clean her house, where co-accused Jaipal was the tenant. At that time, other co-accused Kulveer came there. Meanwhile, co- accused Jaipal gave telephonic call to Surendra (present petitioner) and co-accused Virendra and called them by a white Maruti Car. Kulveer caught hold of her arms and put her inside the car and asked the petitioner Surendra to drive the car fast. On hearing her alarm, Haseen Jahan tried to drag her from the car but Kulveer committed Marpeet with Haseen Jahan due to which Haseen Jahan received injuries. Petitioner-accused Surendra driven the car in speed and 2 taken it towards Afjalgad. On the way, she tried to make noise but co-accused Kulveer closed her mouth with a cloth and also threatened her to marry with him in the court, but when she opposed for marry, the accused persons left her at Jaspur bus stand. With the same averments, Smt. Mamta lodged the F.I.R. at P.S. Jaspur on 27.5.2010 at 1 PM. Specific role has been assigned to the petitioner in the First Information Report. There are allegations of abduction of victim Smt. Mamta against the present petitioner, who along with other accused persons abducted Smt. Mamta with intent to marry her with co-accused Kulveer against her will. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and that of learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and the contents of the First Information Report and facts and circumstances of the case indicates that a prima facie case under Sections 366, 323 and 120-B of IPC is made out against the petitioner. Looking into the seriousness of the allegations made in the First Information Report, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief by this Court at this stage. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed in limine. (Stay Application No.4844 of 2010 also stands dismissed). (Dharam Veer, J.) 22.06.2010 RG