IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.465 OF 2010 Rajeev Singh Kainthura @ Raju Kainthura, S/o Sri JS Kainthura, R/o Chander Road, Near MDDA Colony, Dalanwala, Dehradun ………Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & another …Respondents Dated: June 16, 2010 Sri Devesh Bishnoi, 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 8.6.2010 registered as Case Crime No.132/2010 U/s 376 IPC, PS Dalanwala, District Dehradun. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. 3. In brief the prosecution case is that on 7.6.2010, daughter of respondent no.3, namely, Km. Anchal was called by her friend Km. Saraswati at her house and then both of them went at the office of the petitioner. At about 12 PM, they reached there, however the petitioner was not present. On this, Km. Saraswati contacted the petitioner and informed him about the arrival of Km. Anchal. Thereafter, both of them went with the petitioner in his car and at about 9 PM, Saraswati had left Km. Anchal with the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner allured Km. Anchal on the pretext of giving her job and also told her that he would 2 maintain her properly and would also bear the expenditure of studies. When Km. Anchal asked the petitioner that she is going at her home, on this the petitioner closed the door and thereafter, for the whole night, the petitioner committed rape with the victim. On the next day morning, when the petitioner had gone somewhere then the victim somehow ran away and came at her house and informed about the entire incident to her mother. It was also stated in the FIR that the victim is minor. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged on 8.6.2010 at 8:20 PM at PS Dalanwala, Distt. Dehradun. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has falsely been implicated. On the contrary, learned Addl. GA argued that the petitioner, tried to allure the victim by offering her a job, maintaining her properly and bearing the expenses of her studies, however the victim did not agree to it and when she wanted to go out and also to get free from the clutches of the petitioner, then the petitioner closed the door and thereafter, for the whole of the night he committed rape with the victim, who is a minor. 5. A perusal of the contents of the FIR goes to show that prima facie there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner and the offence punishable 376 IPC is 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. 6. 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 the fact that the petitioner had allured the victim on the pretext of giving her a job and to meet the other expenses and thereafter the petitioner 3 committed rape with the victim who was minor as well as looking to the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief by this Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed summarily. 7. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) June 16, 2010 Rajeev Dang