IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.804 OF 2010 Pulkit Jain ………Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …Respondents Dated: September 23, 2010 Sri SK Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. assisted by Sri Pratiroop Pandey, Adv. for petitioner Sri GS Sandhu, GA for the State/respondent nos.1 & 2 Sri DK Sharma, Adv. for the respondent no.3 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed to issue writ in the nature certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 21.7.2010 lodged by the respondent no.3 as FIR No.377/2010 u/s 307/504/506 IPC at PS Rudrapur, District US Nagar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that respondent no.3- Suresh Kumar lodged an FIR stating therein that on 27.3.2010 at about 10:30 PM, he along with his brother Naresh Babbar was sitting in his hotel at Rudrapur, where the co-accused Jai Chand, Chirag Jain, Deepak Jain and Pulkit (present petitioner) came to meet one Prem Prakash, who stayed in Room No.102. The accused started talking loudly. When the complainant and his brother stopped them to do so, the accused became furious and started abusing and sabotaging. On hearing the noise, Harish Grover, Shyam Sunder Jain and other persons arrived there and intervened, but the accused Jai Chand Jain and the petitioner Pulkit Jain caught hold of brother of complainant and co-accused Deepak Jain fired a gunshot on the private part of complainant’s brother. On the instigation of co-accused Chirag Jain to kill the complainant’s brother, co-accused Deepak Jain shot another fire, which hit on complainant’s brother hand. The accused persons after that ran away from there by saying that they would kill the complainant and his 2 family in future. With the same averments the FIR was lodged on the same day at 11:10 PM at PS Rudrapur. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner by taking plea of alibi, submitted that on the relevant date and time of the incident, the petitioner Pulkit Jain was not present there rather he was in Delhi Metro Station. Learned GA vehemently opposed this argument of learned senior counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in the investigation, it has specifically come that the petitioner was present on the spot at the relevant time and he caught hold of the injured and the co-accused Deepak Jain fired a gunshot which hit on the private part of the injured. Secondly, the FIR has been lodged promptly in which the petitioner’s name has specifically been shown and the petitioner has been assigned the role of catching hold. He further submitted that when the petitioner and co-accused had caught hold of the injured, co-accused Deepak Jain gave fired two shots, one hit on his private part and other hit on his hand. He further submitted that the intention of the accused was to murder the injured. He lastly submitted that the medical evidence also amply corroborate the version of the FIR. 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 also seeing the gravity of the offence, I am of the view that at this stage, prima facie offences punishable u/s 307/504/506 IPC are made out against the petitioner and the petition is liable to be dismissed summarily. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 23.09.2010 Rajeev Dang