IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.731 OF 2010 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Abdul Salam Gohar …………Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal & another …………Respondents Dated: August 3, 2010 Mohd. Azim, Adv. for the applicant Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed to quash the order dated 28.7.2010 passed by Addl. CJM, Kashipur, US Nagar and also to quash the further proceedings in Criminal Case No.184 of 2010, pending before the Addl. C.J.M., Kashipur, District US Nagar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner moved an application before the court below that Abdul Kalam is his son and against him a case is also registered at PS Jaspur, however he is having no relation with his son. Further the son of the petitioner is the permanent resident of Jaspur Mohalla Bhup Singh, Jaspur and in the identification card, bank passbook, insurance policy and ration card also, his address has been mentioned as Mohalla Bhupsingh, Jaspur, while the petitioner has been shown to be a resident of Dhampur, District Bijnaur. The police of Jaspur is harassing the petitioner without any reason and the police wants to attach his house, hence the instant application was moved with a prayer that the police may be restrained to attach his house. This application was rejected by the Addl. CJM, Kashipur (US Nagar) vide order dated 28.7.2010. Hence this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below has erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application. I do not find 2 any force in this argument for the reason that the petitioner is one of the accused in the case lodged by Smt. Shama Parveen U/s 498-A/323/494 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Even the court below also sought a report from the PS Jaspur and in the said report, it was stated that the fact that petitioner is having no relation with his son, is absolutely false and baseless inasmuch in actuality, Abdul Kalam Azad is the son of the petitioner, who was an absconder and even he was staying in the house of the petitioner. The court below also rightly held that till the date of passing of order, no order u/s 83 Cr.P.C. were passed rather the investigation was still pending and he is an accused in the said case. Further neither the petitioner surrendered before the court nor he cooperated in the investigation and the court below rightly held that in that stage, there is no reason to interfere with the investigation being carried out by the Police. Accordingly the court below rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner and I am of the considered view that the order dated 28.7.2010 passed by the court below is perfectly valid and as per law. Even at this stage no direction can be issued which may lead to interfere with the investigation of the case. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merits and is hereby accordingly dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) August 3, 2010