1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 449 of 2011 Umesh Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad R/o Mandakini Vihar, Sahastradhara Road Dehradun Uttarakhand …..…Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Chief Secretary Building, Dehradun Uttarakhand 2. Director General of Police State of Uttarakhand, Dehradun 3. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority Through its Chairman/Secretary 12 Pritam Road, Dalanwala , Dehradun 4. S.H.O. Police Station Dalanwala Dehradun 5. Union of India Through its Chief Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs North Block, New Delhi-110 001 ……….Respondents Shri Gopal K. Verma, Advocate, present for the writ petitioner. Shri Amit Bhatt, A.G.A., present for the State. Shri Vinod Sharma, Advocate, present for the Union of India. Ms. Pooja Banga, Advocate, present for the respondent no. 3. Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Oral: Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. 2 Heard. 2. By means of this petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of proclamation issued by respondent no. 4 in which reward of ` 2,500/- is announced for arrest of the petitioner. Also an independent, and impartial enquiry has been directed to be made by the investigating agency with all India Jurisdiction in respect of Criminal Case No. 184 of 2010, Criminal Case no. 193 of 2010, P.S. Raipur, District Dehradun, Crime No. 63 of 2011, P.S. Sadar, Dehradun, and FIR No. 211 of 2010, P.S. Laksar, District Hardwar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a Journalist who exposed several scams against the State Government. It is further pleaded that as many as 12 criminal cases are shown registered against him, and he is paying price for fighting against corruption. It is also pleaded in the writ petition that petitioner is the Chairman of News Network of India (NNI) which provides quality news to the newspapers and national channels of electronic media. 3 4. On the other hand, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating that disputing averments made in the writ petition. It is pleaded on behalf of the State Government that the criminal cases registered against the petitioner are not only the recent one but he has a long criminal history. Case crime no. 248 of 2005, was filed against him under section 392 IPC, two crimes were registered against him in the year 2007, one of which is crime no. 79 of 2007, relating to offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506 IPC, and another crime no. 16 of 2007, relating to offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 120B, 506 IPC. Two cases were registered in the year 2008, i.e., crime no. 131 of 2008, relating to offences punishable under section 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and one crime no. 106 of 2008, relating to offences punishable under section 323, 504, 506 IPC. Two cases were registered in the year 2010, one crime no. 184 of 2010, relating to offences punishable under section 506 IPC, and under section 3(1)(x) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and another crime no. 193 of 2010, relating to offences punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. Rest of the five cases related to the year 2011, out of which four cases pertain to 4 Arms Act, and one pertains to section 384 IPC (Crime no. 63 of 2011). It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 4 that the criminal history is apparent from para 7 of the writ petition itself. It is further pointed on behalf of the State Government that the impugned proclamation was rightly issued as the petitioner is not surrendering before the court concerned nor co-operating with the investigating agency. 5. In reply to above, on behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that he was issued three arms licenses by the authorities in Uttarakhand, and when the arms licenses were cancelled the petitioner deposited the two arms with a licensed Arms Dealer in Bulandshehar, and gave information to the authority concerned in Uttarakhand. It is argued that still the petitioner is made to face criminal cases due to vengeance harboured by the State Government against the petitioner. 6. On going through the affidavits and counter affidavits of the parties, this Court finds that before the crimes were registered relating to Arms Act by the police against the petitioner, the 5 petitioner had not given any information that he had already deposited two arms at Bulandshehar. The third license was deposited by the petitioner before this Court today (against which no arm is purchased). Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that out of the twelve cases four cases related to IPC, the petitioner has already obtained stay orders by filing different writ petitions, and he is not arrested. It is also pointed out that in one of the robbery case police had filed final report in October 2005. Further, it appears that petitioner has yet to surrender in five cases one of which pertain to offence punishable under section 384 IPC. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner is not co-operating with the investigating agency nor has surrendered even after issuance of non-bailable warrants, processes under section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., issued by the court. 8. In the above circumstances, having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties present, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner may surrender before the court concerned within the period of ten 6 days. If he surrenders within a period of ten days in connection with the cases in which arrest is not stayed the impugned proclamation order dated 06.06.2011, (Annex. 17 to the writ petition) wherein reward of ` 2,500/- is announced shall stand quashed. It is further observed that if the petitioner surrenders in connection with the cases in which his arrest is not stayed, his bail application shall be heard, and disposed of without unreasonable delay keeping in mind that he pleads that as a journalist he is fighting against corruption. It is also directed that pass-port which was deposited by the petitioner before this Court shall be returned back to him. As to the one arm license against which no arm was purchased, and deposited before this Court Registry shall inform the District Magistrate, Dehradun and S.S.P. Dehradun, that the same may be collected by the concerned authority. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 23.06.2011 Parul