1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 857 of 2011 with Interim Relief Application No. 10376 of 2011 Smt Sashi W/o Sanjay Kumar R/o Gali No. 20, House No. 113 Krishana Nagar, Salempur Rajputana, P.S. Gangnehar Roorkee, District Hardwar …………… Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, through its Secretary Home, Dehradun 2. S.S.P. Hardwar District, Haridwar 3. S.H.O of P.S. Gangnehar, District Haridwar 4. Sanjay Saini S/o Raj Singh Saini R/o Village Takipur Sekhwala, P.S. Biharigarh District Saharanpur 5. Pappu Saini S/o unknown R/o village Muzzferabad District Saharanpur 6. Jogendra Morya S/o Phel Singh R/o village Ibrahimpur Deh 2 P.S. Kotwali Gangnehar Roorkee, District Hardwar 7. Basant Lal I.O., Police Station Gangnehar (Roorkee) District Hardwar …………..Respondents. Shri Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, present for the petitioner(complainant) Shri T.C.Aggarwal, Additional G.A., present for the State Shri Rajendra Singh, Advocate, present for the respondent no.4 (Sanjay Saini). Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought direction to arrest respondent no.4, 5 & 6 in connection with First Information Report 05.02.2011, registered as Crime No. 39 of 2011, relating to offences punishable under section, 454 and 380 of I.P.C., Police Station Gangnehar, District Hardwar. Also, a mandamus has been sought to protect life and liberty of the petitioner. It is also prayed in the writ petition that the investigation 3 be transferred to C.B.C.I.D. (3) Respondents were directed to file their counter affidavits. Respondent No.7 (Investigating Officer) has filed his counter affidavit. Perusal of the Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit shows that after investigation of F.I.R., dated 05.02.2011, registered as Crime No. 39 of 2011, Police Station Gangnehar, District Hardwar, final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer on 07.07.2011. As such, there was no question of directing the arrest of the respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6 in connection with the aforesaid crime. The petitioner has remedy to file protest petition before trial court. (4) Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 Sanjay Saini submittted before this court that the petitioner is landlord, and the respondent is an admittedly tenant of the petitioner. It is contended that it is abuse of process of law on the part of the petitioner to implicate the respondent no.4 (tenant) in the criminal case. 4 The First Information Report appears to have got lodged after obtaining orders under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., after getting the some drafted through an Advocate (Mamtesh Sharma). (5) Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and the affidavit and counter affidavit on record, this court is not inclined to grant the relief prayed by the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.14.11.2011 NP