IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Writ Petition No. 356 of 2008 1. Nawab Jan S/o Mohd. Hussain R/o Village Rajpur, P.S. Jaspur, District udham Singh Nagar. 2. Rahmat Ali S/o Sri Shareeful Hussain R/o Village Islampur, P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Taufeeque Khan S/o Abdul Shakoor R/o Village Rajpur, P.S. Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ………….. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Chief Secretary to Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Special Marriage Officer, Jaspur/Kashipur District Udahm Singh Nagar. 4. Smt. Tarranum Jahan D/o Sri Ajajuddin District Moradabad. …………… Respondents Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought quashing of the first information report dated 11.05.2008, which is registered as Crime No. 82 of 2008, relating to offence punishable under Section 420, 181 of I.P.C., with police station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3) The allegation against petitioner No. 1 Nawab Jan in the first information report is that while moving for second marriage under Special Marriage Act, the petitioner No. 1 declared himself as ‘widower’. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioner No. 1 is ‘divorcee’. It is further submitted that due to mistake he mentioned himself as ‘widower’ instead of ‘divorcee’. It is further contended that the offence of the petitioner No. 1, at the most is covered by Section 45 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and punishable only under Section 199 of I.P.C. It is further argued that no ingredients of offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. are made out as it is not an offence against the property, rather, it is a case of second marriage. 4) Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Brief Holder and learned counsel for respondent No. 3, we are not inclined to interfere with the investigation, but we feel it just and proper to observe here that the petitioners, considering the nature of offence which is substantially covered only under Section 199 of I.P.C. read with Section 45 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, deserve bail. 5) Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed in limine with the observation that if the petitioners are arrested or surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of, without unreasonable delay. (Stay application No. 2762 of 2008 as well as Urgency Application No. 979 of 2008 both stands dismissed, accordingly). (Dharam Veer, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 21.05.2008 21.05.2008 H.Negi