IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 865 of 2006 (M/B) Sushil Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Banarasi Das Agrawal, R/o Main Bazar, Kasba and Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun. ........... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through S.S.P., Dehradun. 2. Station Officer, Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun. 3. Sri R.S. Pal, Station Officer, Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun. .......... Respondents Mr. Arvind Vashishth, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.C. Pande, Addl. Government Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 & 2. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble Prafull C. Pant, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) Mr. Arvind Vashishth, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.C. Pande, Addl. Government Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 & 2. They are heard on admission. 2. Petitioner Sushil Kumar Agrawal has filed this writ petition for the following refiefs: “(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 06.07.2006 lodged by Respondent no. 3 which has been registered as Case Crime No. 139 of 2006 Under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B I.P.C. at Police Station- Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun. (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest and not to harass the petitioner in pursuance of impugned F.I.R. dated 06.07.2006 lodged by Respondent No. 3 which has been registered as Case Crime No. 139 of 2006 Under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B I.P.C. at Police Station-Vikas Nagar District Dehradun. (iii) any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) award the cost of petition to the petitioner.” 3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest for his alleged involvement in Crime No. 139 of 2006 registered at Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the I.P.C. 4. The First information Report lodged by respondent No. 3 Sri R.S. Pal against the petitioner reads as follows: “C;ku fd;k fd eSa ,l-vks- :nflag iky e; ,l-vkbZ gjd flag fdjeky okn cl ua0 UA07 E-4678 esa jokuk jQrk jiV ua0 24 le; 12-30 cts fnukad 6-7-2006 ls okil vk;k tkWp ls ik;k fd fnukad 2-7-06 dks lwpuk feyh fd ,d gh ua0 UA07 E-4678 dh nks clsa yEcs le; ls pksjh fNis jkT; ljdkj dk VSDl pksjh djrs gq, voS/k :i ls ;kf=;ksa dks ysdj vk tk jgh gS ftlesa jkT; ljdkj dks jktLo dh gkfu igqWpkdj futh :i ls voS/k ykHk vftZr dj jgh gS bl lwpuk ij Rofjr dk;Zogh djrs gq;s nksuksa cl mijksDr dks fnukad 2-7-2006 dks ogokys jiV ua0 3 le; nks cts vkj-ih-vks- Mkd iRFkj ij nkf[ky fd;k x; gS ftldh ryklh ij dksbZ oS/kkfud dkxtkr xkM+h ls lEcfU/kr ugh feysA nksuksa clksa esa vyx vyx MsLdcksMZ dh ryk’kh yh x;h rks cl ua- UA07 E-4678 pSfpl ua0 3052259510 ds MSLd cksMZ ls VkSy VSDl] Mhty iphZ] ikfdZx iphZ] xaxks=h ;equks=h ;k=k] iathdj.k Vksdu] ;k=h fyLV vkfn cjken gqbZ rFkk nwljh cl ua0 UA07 E-4678 pSfll ua0 359057415463 ls ikfdZx 'kqYd Mhty iphZ] rhFkZ;k=h dj izi- la0 2] Vksy VSDl jlhn vkfn cjken gqbZA cjken iphZ vkfn mijksDr dks vyx ls QnZ cukbZ xbZ gSA rFkk nksuks clksa ds ckjhdh ijh{k.k ls ik;k fd clsa 42 lhV okyh gSa rFkk cl ,d gh lkbZt ,d gh gqfy;k dh gS ftuij vxzoky VSªoYl rFkk ftu ij VsyhQksu ua0 001360&251835] 251234] ekSck0 u0 9412018663 nksuksa clksa esa fy[kk gqvk gS clksa dh ,d lkbZM esa fnO;k vxzoky vafdr gS nksuksa clksa dks ,d lkFk [kM+h dj QksVksxzkQh djk;h xbZA rFkk clksa dks /kkjk 207 ,e-oh- ,DV esa fnukad 2-7-06 dks lht fd;k x;k rFkk mu clksa ds lEcU/k esa xgurk ls tkWp dh xbZ tkWp ds nkSjku , vkj Vh vks nsgjknwu dks lwfpr fd;k x;k ftudh Vhe }kjk fnukad 3-7-06 dks ijh{k.k fd;k x;k ftldh vk[;k i=kad 70 iz’kklu@lrdZrk@2006 fn0 3-7-06 gLrk{kj ;qDr ,-vkj-Vh-vks- Jh vfuy dqekj flag gSa ftlds vuqlkj pSfpl ua0 iUnzg vadks esa ugh gS o dksM uEcj ekMy 1992 ds vuq:i ugh gS ftldk iath;u ekfyd lq’khy dqekj vxzoky gSa vc rd dh tkWp ls Li"V gqvk fd nksuksa clksa ij ,d gh uEcj vafdr dj jkT; ljdkj dks /kks[kk nsdj voS/k :i ls lq’khy dqekj vxzoky rFkk vU; yksxksa }kjk ,d "kM+;U= ds rgr clksa dk lapkyu dj voS/k vkfFkZd ykHk vftZr fd;k tk jgk Fkk rFkk igkM+h nqxZe jkLrksa ij bu QthZ clksa dks pykdj ;kf=;ksa ds thou ds lkFk f[kyokM+ fd;k tk jgk FkkA tkWp ls izFke n`"V;k dk vijk/k /kkjk 420@467@468@471@120ch IPC dk vijk/k curk gSA clksa ls ifpZ;ksa e; QnZ o ,-vkj-Vh-vks- dh fjiksVZ vkfn nkf[ky dh tk jgh gSA igyh cl ps0u0 3052259510 le; ,d cts iqy ua0 ,d fodkl uxj ls rFk nwljh cl ps0ua0 359057415463 dks le; 1-30 cts vLirky jksM+ fodkl uxj fn0 2-7-06 dks idM+h x;h gSA C;ku i<+k tks cksyk ogh fy[kk gSA rLnhd dj gLrk{kj cukrk gWwA 5. On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the above-quoted contents of the First Information Report, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of any of the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petition. We are refraining from commenting on the merits of the case lest it may adversely affect the petitioner’s case at the trial, which the petitioner is yet to face. 6. The writ petition, therefore is liable to be dismissed and is, hereby, dismissed summarily. 7. Consequently, CLMA No. 9167 of 2006 also stands dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C. J.) 24.07.2006 24.07.2006 G