1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 1075 of 2011 with Stay Application No. 12937 of 2011 1. Sareef Ahmad S/o Sri Kareem Baks (father of the deceased) 2. Julfikar Ahmad S/o Sri Sareef Ahmad (brother of the deceased) Both R/o Village Todalpur Police Station Nuriya District Pilibhit (U.P) 3. Samdhul Hassan S/o Nasarulla R/o Sarenda Patti Police Station Amariya District Pilibhit U.P (Maternal uncle of the deceased) 4. Mohammad Farooq @ Farooq Ahmad S/o Sri Israr Baks @ Israr Ahmad R/o village Votta, Khamariya Police Station Balkhera District PilibhitU.P (Brother in law of the deceased) 5. Parvez S/o Salamulla (helper of the deceased) R/o Nai Basti Khera, Rudrapur District Udham Singh Nagar 6. Mohammad Rafeeq S/o Haneef Ahmad (cousin brother of the deceased) R/o Village Chaka Police Station Jahanabad District PilibhitU.P …………… Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary Home Dehradun 2 2. Station House Officer Police Station Rudrapur Udham Singh Nagar 3. Smt. Sama W/o Late Afjal Ahmad R/o Adarsh Colony Near Devi Mandir Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar presently residing at village Todalpur Police Station Nuriya District Pilibhit U.P. (wife of the deceased) …………..Respondents. Shri Tumul K. Nailwal, Advocate, present for the petitioners Shri S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought quashing of the First Information Report dated 24.11.2011, registered as F.I.R. No. 553 of 2011, relating to offences punishable under section 406 and 420 of I.P.C., Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3 (3) The complainant is widow of a victim, who got killed in riots has alleged that her family members did not pay amount of exgratia relief granted to her. She has alleged that out of the ` one lac granted by the government, she got only ` 50,000/-, and out of further ` one lac given by the Congress Party from its party fund she got nothing. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no.1 is father of the victim, it is further pleaded that the amount granted by the government was paid to the complainant, while the amount granted by the Congress Party was given to the petitioner. (4) However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, whether any cheating was committed by the petitioner, and the other accused against the widow of the victim is a question of fact which can not be examined by this court in its writ jurisdiction. (5) Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits in the matter this court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation of the case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed 4 summarily with the observation that if the petitioners namely Sareef Ahmad, Julfikar Ahmad, Samadhul Hassan, Mohammad Farooq @ Farooq Ahmad, Parvez and Mohammad Rafeeq, surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Stay Application No. 12937 of 2011, stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.12.12.2011 NP