IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.606 OF 2010 Yogesh Kumar ………Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …Respondents Dated: August 16, 2010 Sri Pradeep Hairiya, Adv. for petitioner Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondents 1 to 3 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 5.7.2010 lodged as FIR No.50/2010 u/s 420/504/506 IPC. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. In brief the prosecution case is that the petitioner made an agreement with the respondent no.2 to sell his land for Rs.45.00 lacs out of which Rs.3.40 lacs was given to the petitioner on 27.10.2009 and Rs.3.00 lacs further were given to the petitioner on 18.11.2009 by the respondent no.2. After paying the said amount, the complainant came to know that the petitioner had already mortgaged the said land with Almora Urban Bank Haldwani for Rs.30.00 lacs and Rs.29.50 lacs were due against the petitioner. As such the petitioner along with his brother Rakesh Kumar (co-accused) cheated the complainant for Rs.6.40 lacs. When the complainant enquired about the same from accused, they abused him and also threatened him with revolver to his life. Further the complainant also got constructed a boundary wall over that land in which Rs.60,000/- were spent in it. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the above case. Learned Addl. G.A. for the State opposed the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the petitioner cheated the complainant for Rs.6.40 lacs. The petitioner, in connivance with co-accused, made an agreement to sell with the complainant even while knowing that the said land was already been mortgaged with the Almora Urban Bank Haldwani for Rs.30.00 lacs and even Rs.29.50 were even yet to be paid by the petitioner and he cheated the petitioner to the tune of Rs.6.40 lacs and even Rs.60,000/- were also spent by the complainant in constructing a boundary wall. When the complainant enquired about the same from the petitioner, he was threatened to his life. 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 seeing the gravity of the offence, I am of the view that at this stage, prima facie offences punishable u/s 420/504/506 IPC are made out against the petitioner and he is not entitled for any relief by this Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the writ petition being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 16.08.2010 Rajeev Dang