IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.334 OF 2010 Vikash Kumar Chauhan ………Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …Respondents Dated: May 7, 2010 Sri Ramji Srivastava, 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 FIR dated 23.04.2010 lodged by the respondent No.3 on the basis of which Case Crime No.58 of 2010 u/s 498-A/323/506 IPC & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at P.S. Cantt. Dehradun, District Dehradun. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. In brief the prosecution case is that respondent no.3-Pooja Chauhan got married with the present petitioner on 28.1.07 as per Hindu RITES, who is a constable in Uttarakhand Police. The father of respondent no.3 spent Rs.10.00 lacs in marriage, however soon after the marriage, the petitioner and his family members started harassing the respondent no.3 for getting less dowry and further demanded Rs.5.00 lacs in cash and a motorcycle in dowry. In the month of June, 2007, father of respondent no.3 got purchased a motorcycle to the petitioner. However, even then the petitioner and his family members were not satisfied with the demand of dowry and the petitioner started beating her daily and her situation was become precarious. In 2009, the petitioner again demanded Rs.2.00 lacs from respondent no.3 and when she denied, she was beaten with fists and kicks and she was also ousted from there. After that the respondent no.3 gave Rs.2.00 lacs to the petitioner from her father by which he got opened a shop. On 22.3.2010, the petitioner went in the parental house of respondent no.3 where he committed Marpit and forcefully took Kinetic Bike of sister of respondent no.3. On 1.4.2010, the petitioner also lifted the scooter of father of respondent no.3 and even he started threatening that he is a policeman and let the report be lodged against him. On 6.4.2010, she was ousted in her worn clothes and on 7.4.2010, he gave a false application in Women’s Cell and also said that the parents of respondent no.3 had to give Rs.2.50 lacs to him. When the respondent no.3 went in the cell, then again the petitioner demanded Rs.2.50 lacs in lieu of keeping her along with him and also threatened that if the demand is not fulfilled, she along with her entire family would be implicated in a criminal case. The petitioner also threatened the respondent no.3 after coming out from the Women’s Cell to her life in case she would take any further action in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the present petitioner has falsely been implicated in the said case. Contrary to this, learned Addl. GA argued that the petitioner is a person of greedy nature and he is continuing in demanding money again and again from the respondent no.3 and in case of non-fulfillment of demand, she was also subjected to physical and mental harassment. He further submitted that the petitioner, being a policeman, also threatens the respondent no.3 and her family members that he would falsely implicate them in some case. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, on a perusal of the contents of the FIR it reveals that prima facie there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner and the offence punishable u/498-A/323/506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act are fully made out against the petitioner on the basis of the averments made in the FIR as well as on perusal of the other papers on record. 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 and on record, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief by this Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 07.05.2010 Rajeev Dang