IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.487 OF 2010 Amarjeet Singh Marwah ………Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …Respondents (2) CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.488 OF 2010 Anand Singh Marko & others ………Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …Respondents Dated: July 1, 2010 Sri Rakesh Thapliyal & Sri Lalit Sharma, Advocates for the petitioners Sri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. These two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners assailing the common FIR lodged against them and the incident is also common, hence they are being disposed of by this common order. By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR lodged as FIR No.520/2009 u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC P.S. Rudrapur, District U.S. Nagar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that complainant Parvinder Singh lodged an FIR on 26.9.2009 stating therein that he is having an Account No.6341 at 2 Punjab & Sindh Bank, Rudrapur Branch, Distt. U.S. Nagar. On 23.9.2009, when the complainant obtained his account statement from the Bank, he came to know that on 24.8.2009, an amount of Rs.8.50 lacs has been withdrawn from his account by one Sukbinder Singh through Cheque No.896849. It was further stated that the said cheqeue no.896849 was neither issued to him from the Bank nor that was signed by him. Therefore, in order to cause financial loss to the complainant, someone, in connivance with the Bank officials, have withdrawn the said amount from his account. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged on 26.9.2009 at 4:10 PM at PS Rudrapur, Distt. US Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are the Bank Officers and they have falsely been implicated in this case. Per contra, learned Brief Holder argued that it is a case where the amount of Rs.8.50 lacs has been withdrawn from the account of the complainant through Cheque No.896849, however, even the said cheque was neither issued in his favour nor that was signed by him. He further submitted that during enquiry, the said Cheque was sent for the expert opinion, and the Handwriting Expert has given the opinion that the disputed cheque did not bear the handwriting of the complainant Parvinder Singh. He further submitted that during investigation, the I.O. has collected sufficient evidence against the present petitioners, which prima facie proves the involvement of the present petitioners in the case. He further submitted that the present petitioners, though posted as the Bank Officers, but they, in connivance with one Sukhbinder Singh, have caused financial loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs.8.50 lacs. 3 Thus, on a careful analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, it reveals that the said Cheque No.896849 was prepared and produced in the Bank by one Sukhbinder Singh, and in connivance with the Bank officials, the fictitious signatures were also made by some forged person on the said Cheque and through the said fabricated Cheque, an amount of Rs.8.50 lacs has been fraudulently withdrawn from the account of complainant Parvinder Singh. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of FIR and other documents available on record and seeing the gravity of the offence, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief by this Court and the petitions are liable to be dismissed. Both the writ petitions are, therefore, devoid of merits and are dismissed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 1, 2010 Rajeev Dang