IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL URGENCY APPLICATION NO.1627 OF 2010 STAY APPLICATION NO.3082 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.307 OF 2010 Naveen Agarwal and two others ……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & two others ……… Respondents Dated: May 10, 2010 Mr. Parikshit Saini and Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocates for the petitioners Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for the State Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the respondent no.3 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Urgency application no.1627 of 2010 is allowed. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the First Information Report, registered at Police Station Rishikesh, District Dehradun as Case Crime No.157 of 2010 relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 406 and 506 IPC. A further mandamus has been sought commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners till the pendency of this writ petition in connection with the aforesaid crime. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on file. In brief, the prosecution story is that on 23.4.2010 complainant Premchandra Bahukhandi lodged a FIR at P.S. Rishikesh stating therein that in the year 2007 the complainant was willing to purchase two separate residential accommodation for both of his sons as complainant was living in a rented accommodation at Shyampur Rishikesh with his family. It is further alleged in the FIR that one relative of complainant, namely, Manoj, after coming to know about his willingness regarding purchase of property, told this fact to the petitioner 2 nos.1 and 2, who in the year 2007 along with their alleged Manager Gopal came to the house of complainant and stated that they are in business of property dealing and have made agreements in the name of petitioner no.1 pertaining to the residential house of one Himmat Singh Negi and Mohan Lal Aswal. The petitioners also showed the said agreements on stamp papers to the complainant. It is further alleged in the FIR that the petitioners showed the said houses to the complainant and his family members from outside and stated that in lieu of the agreement of the said houses, petitioner no.1 has given total advance of Rs.30 Lacs for the said residential houses to their respective owners and if the complainant agrees to pay Rs.32,90,000/- to them they will did two separate registry in the name of sons of the complainant and with intention to cheat the complainant, the petitioners obtained Rs.2,90,000/- in cash and received four cheques amounting Rs.30 Lacs from the complainant. The petitioner no.1 go encashed the said cheques from the bank and in this way total amount of Rs.32,90,000/- was taken by him from the complainant. It was assured that till March 2008 the petitioners will execute the sale deed in favour of his two sons but when till March 2008 the petitioners did not execute the sale deed, the complainant make pressure upon them for executing the sale deeds but on one pretext or another, the petitioners continued delaying the sale deed. Then in the year 2009 the complainant contacted the owners of the said houses i.e. Himmat Singh Negi and Mohal Lal Aswal who told them that they even do not know the petitioners and have never made any agreement of sale for them. When this fact was apprised to the petitioners by the complainant, the petitioners asked the complainant for purchase of another property in lieu of the consideration amount given by him but the complainant did not agree and asked to take the matter in the police station on which the petitioners, after consulting with each other, gave 13 cheques to the complainant of the account of petitioner no.1 Naveen Agarwal with A/c No.3907000103127357. The said cheques were amounting Rs.32,90,000/- but as soon as the date of encashment of first cheque dated 15.3.2009 reached near, the petitioners gave Rs.20,000 on 28.2.2009, Rs.80,000/- on 3 24.3.2009 and Rs.80,000/- on 16.3.2009, in total Rs.1,80,000/- to the complainant. When the complainant started to submit some of the said cheques in the bank, the same got dishonoured due to insufficient funds and difference in signatures and thus the complainant did not submit remaining cheques in the bank. In this way, the petitioners, with criminal conspiracy, grabbed Rs.32,90,000/- from the complainant, out of which only Rs.1,80,000 has been given back to him. It is further alleged that since beginning the petitioners were having intention to cheat the complainant and now they are threatening the complainant for dire consequences. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged by complainant Premchandra Bahukhandi on 23.4.2010 at P.S. Rishikesh. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and as per the averments made in the FIR no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 406 and 506 of IPC is made out. Perusal of the contents of FIR and other papers available on file, prima facie indicates that the petitioners have played fraud upon the respondent no.3, firstly, by showing residential houses of someone else to respondent no.3 by preparing forged agreement of sale, when neither the petitioners were the owner of those houses nor they were having possession over them. Secondly, in lieu of those residential houses, which were the property of someone else, petitioners grabbed Rs.32,90,000/- from the respondent no.3, and thirdly by issuing cheques to him with the account of petitioner no.1 Naveen Agarwal which got dishonoured due to insufficient funds and difference in signatures. Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts and circumstances, gravity and seriousness of the crime, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief by this Court. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed in limine. (Stay Application No.3082 of 2010 is also dismissed). (Dharam Veer, J.) 10.05.2010 RG 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL STAY APPLICATION NO.3057 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.305 OF 2010 Surendra and three others ……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & two others ……… Respondents Dated: April 30, 2010 Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the First Information Report, which is registered at Police Station Jhabrera, District Haridwar as Case Crime No.60 of 2010 relating to offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and 3(I) 10 S.C./S.T. Act. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on file. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.4.2010 at 07:00 AM respondent no.3 saw smoke coming out from the back side of his house. He went over the roof of his house and found that Surendra Singh, whose house was adjacent to his house, was blowing fire in his plot. He stopped the petitioner Surendra Singh and asked that his house might also get burn. On this, Surendra Singh hurled abuses and called him Chamaar. Meanwhile, Birendra Singh-brother of Surendra, Sandeep-son of Birendra Singh and Pradep-son of Surendra, armed with Lathi and Ballam by saying him Chamaar starting throwing bricks in his house and in the house of Kadam Singh, due to which his wife Atro Devi received injuries. His brother Deshraj, son Amit and Rajpal, 5 Gaje Singh, Vijaypal, Anup and others of same village arrived at the spot. After that the petitioners went from there by giving them threat of life. With the same averments, the FIR was lodged by Illam Singh (respondent no.3) on 22.4.2010 at 12:35 PM at P.S. Jhabrera. Specific role has been assigned to the petitioners in the F.I.R. Further, the contents of the F.I.R. gets corroboration from the injury report of wife of respondent no.3 Smt. Atro Devi. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and that of learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and after going through the contents of the First Information Report, prima facie offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and 3(I) 10 of S.C./S.T. Act are made out against the petitioners. Looking into the seriousness of the allegations made in the First Information Report, I do not find any ground to grant relief to the petitioners at this stage. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed in limine. (Stay Application No.3057 of 2010 is also dismissed). (Dharam Veer, J.) 30.04.2010 RG 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL URGENCY APPLICATION NO.1459 OF 2010 AND STAY APPLICATION NO.2397 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.252 OF 2010 Sardar Singh ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & two others ……… Respondents Dated: April 22, 2010 Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the First Information Report, which has been registered at Police Station Chakrata, District Dehradun as Case Crime No.01 of 2010 relating to offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on file. Brief facts of the case are that on 4.4.2010 complainant Rajendra Kumar lodged the First Information Report at P.S. Chakrata alleging that on 2.4.2010 his wife Smt. Kavita was working in his shop. Meanwhile, the petitioner Sardar Singh came there and asked for a glass from his wife for the purpose of drinking liquor. On the refusal to give the glass, the petitioner became annoyed and he misbehaved with his wife and also started beating his wife with his shoes. It is further averted in the F.I.R. that when the complainant and his wife went to lodge the report of the said incident in the police station then on the intervention of some persons of the village, the matter was 7 settled between the parties but due to this insult, his wife committed suicide on 4.4.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on the basis of averments made in the F.I.R., no case is made out against the petitioner. Contrary to this, learned Additional Government Advocate argued that offence u/s 306 IPC is clearly made out against the petitioner on the basis of averments of FIR and even one suicide note was also left by the deceased which also corroborates the version of the F.I.R. He further argued that the Investigating Officer has collected sufficient evidence against the petitioner which proves the involvement of the petitioner in the said crime. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and that of learned Addl. G.A. for the State and after going through the contents of the First Information Report, prima facie offence u/s 306 IPC is made out against the petitioner. Looking into the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief at this stage. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed in limine. (Urgency Application No.1459 of 2010 and Stay Application No.2397 of 2010 stand disposed of accordingly). (Dharam Veer, J.) 22.04.2010 RG 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL STAY APPLICATION NO.1667 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.189 OF 2010 Ilam & six others ……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & two others ……… Respondents Dated: March 19, 2010 Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for the respondent no.3. HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the First Information Report which has been registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar as Case Crime No.57 of 2010 relating to offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. A further mandamus has been sought commanding and directing the respondent nos.1 and 2 not to arrest the present petitioners during the pendency of this writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on file. Brief facts of the case are that Mange Ram (respondent no.3) got lodged the First Information Report at P.S. Bhagwanpur against the present petitioners alleging that his sister was married to Petitioner No.3 Sunil about ten years back. On 5.3.2010 he and his family members were informed by some one that his sister has been murdered by the petitioners. On this information, he and his family members reached the house of the petitioners. But 9 before they could reach on the spot, the petitioners have taken the dead body to the cremation ground. The petitioners did not allow them to see the dead body of his sister. When the complainant and his family members tried to see the dead body forcibly then the petitioners burnt the dead body by pouring kerosene oil on it. The petitioners also threatened them that if they will inform about the said incident in the court or police station then they will be murdered. It is alleged in the FIR that the present petitioners have committed murder of Smt. Mamta. From a perusal of the First Information Report, prima facie it reveals the offences u/s 302 and 201 of IPC are made out against the petitioners. The allegations in the F.I.R. are of serious nature, which requires investigation. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and that of learned brief holder for the State and after going through the contents of the First Information Report, in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the First Information Report, I am not inclined to interfere with the investigation in the present matter. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Stay Application No.1667 of 2010 stands disposed of). (Dharam Veer, J.) 19.03.2010 RG 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.935 OF 2009 1. Smt. Shahana Praveen 2. Km. Nazima (Minor) ……… Petitioners Versus 1. Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, Camp Kashipur 2. Sharif Ahmed ……… Respondent Dated: October 30, 2009 Mr. K.S. Bhaskar, Advocate for the applicants Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.1 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By way of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the judgment and order dated 6.7.2009 passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, Camp Kashipur, whereby the application for interim maintenance of the petitioner no.1 moved u/s 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as the CrPC) against the respondent no.2 (father-in-law) has been rejected. In the writ petition, it is further prayed to stay the proceeding of the case no.303/2007 pending in the court of Family Judge, Udham Singh Nagar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on file. In brief, the facts of the case are that petitioner no.1-Smt. Shahana Praveen moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar against the respondent no.2 (father-in-law) for interim maintenance for herself and her daughter stating therein that she is having no source of income and therefore she is unable to maintain herself and her daughter. It was also 11 stated by her that she is not having any money to contest the case and since there is time in disposal of the original suit therefore she moved the present application. She also stated that respondent no.2 is doing business from where he gets Rs.60-70,000/- per month. In this way, she sought an amount of Rs.40,000/- against the respondent no.2 for contesting the case, legal expenses and fees of advocates, etc in lumpsum. Respondent no.2 also appeared before the court below, filed his written statement stating therein that the application moved by the petitioner no.1 does not come within the ambit of Section 125 Cr.P.C., therefore, no interim maintenance can be granted. It was also stated that petitioner no.1 is a hale and hearty lady and also does work of sewing and knitting from where she easily gets Rs.5,000/- per month. On the other hand, he is aged about 72 years and previously he was running riksha but now he has also leave that work. It was specifically stated in the objection that there is no provision u/s 125 Cr.P.C. to get interim maintenance against father-in-law. After appreciating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar vide his judgment and order dated 6.7.2009 rejected the application of the petitioner no.1 for interim maintenance. Against that judgment and order, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition before this Court. Before further discussion, it is pertinent to mention Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:- 125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.- (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain – (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or 12 (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. From a perusal of the aforesaid quoted Section, it is clear that there is no provision in law to grant any interim maintenance to a lady against her father-in-law. Therefore, the petitioner no.1 is not entitled to get any maintenance for herself and her daughter against respondent no.2, who is her father-in-law. In view of the foregoing discussion and legal proposition, I am of the considered view that the judgment and order of the court below is correct and justified which requires no interference. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 30.10.2009 13 RG IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.770 OF 2008 WITH STAY APPLICATION NO.6486 OF 2008 Neeraj Bhanoda S/o Lal Chand Bhanoda & six others .…..Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & two others …….Respondents Dated: 30th September, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer,J. Heard Sri K.S. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State. Admit the petition. Notices on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2 are accepted by Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State, who prays for and is allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Issue notice to respondent no.3-Smt. Priyanka Bhanoda, who may also file her counter affidavit within a period of three weeks. Also heard on stay application. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the F.I.R. dated 01.09.2008, registered as Case Crime No.135/2008, relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at P.S. Kankhal, District Haridwar. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no.1 is husband, petitioner no.2 is father-in-law, petitioner no.3 is mother-in-law, petitioner no.4 is brother- 14 in-law (DEVAR), petitioner no.5 is brother-in-law (DEVAR), petitioner no.6 is sister-in-law (NANAD) and petitioner no.7 is also sister-in-law (NANAD) of respondent no.3. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. against the petitioner nos.2 to 7, are general in nature and the allegations for the demand of dowry are made against petitioner no.1-Neeraj Bhanoda. It is further submitted that it is an abuse of process of law on the part of respondent no.3 to falsely implicate respondent nos.2 to 7. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, as an interim measure, it is hereby directed that the petitioner no.2-Lal Chand, petitioner no.3-Smt. Damyanti, petitioner no.4-Sandeep, petitioner no.5-Sharad, petitioner no.6-Nidhi, petitioner no.7-Shalini, shall not be arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime, during investigation, provided they cooperates with the investigating agency. However, the interim relief application for staying the arrest of petitioner no.1-Neeraj Bhanoda is rejected. List after three weeks. (Stay Application No.6486/2008 is disposed of accordingly). (Dharam Veer, J.) 23.10.2008 RG 15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.770 OF 2008 WITH STAY APPLICATION NO.6486 OF 2008 Neeraj Bhanoda S/o Lal Chand Bhanoda & six others .…..Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & two others …….Respondents Dated: 30th September, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer,J. Heard Sri K.S. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State. Admit the petition. Notices on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2 are accepted by Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State, who prays for and is allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Issue notice to respondent no.3-Smt. Priyanka Bhanoda, who may also file her counter affidavit within a period of three weeks. Also heard on stay application. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the F.I.R. dated 01.09.2008, registered as Case Crime No.135/2008, relating to offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at P.S. Kankhal, District Haridwar. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner no.1 is husband, petitioner no.2 is father-in-law, petitioner no.3 is mother-in-law, petitioner no.4 is brother- in-law (DEVAR), petitioner no.5 is brother-in-law (DEVAR), 16 petitioner no.6 is sister-in-law (NANAD) and petitioner no.7 is also sister-in-law (NANAD) of respondent no.3. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. against the petitioner nos.2 to 7, are general in nature and the allegations for the demand of dowry are made against petitioner no.1-Neeraj Bhanoda. It is further submitted that it is an abuse of process of law on the part of respondent no.3 to falsely implicate respondent nos.2 to 7. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, as an interim measure, it is hereby directed that the petitioner no.2-Lal Chand, petitioner no.3-Smt. Damyanti, petitioner no.4-Sandeep, petitioner no.5-Sharad, petitioner no.6-Nidhi, petitioner no.7-Shalini, shall not be arrested in connection with the aforesaid crime, during investigation, provided they cooperates with the investigating agency. However, the interim relief application for staying the arrest of petitioner no.1-Neeraj Bhanoda is rejected. List after three weeks. (Stay Application No.6486/2008 is disposed of accordingly). (Dharam Veer, J.) 30.09.2008 RG 17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.771 OF 2008 WITH STAY APPLICATION NO.6485 OF 2008 Smt. Bala & two others .…..Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & two others …….Respondents Dated: 30th September, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer,J. Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State. Admit the petition. Notices on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2 are accepted by Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State, who prays for and is allowed three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Issue notice to respondent no.3-Smt. Janki, who may also file her counter affidavit within a period of three weeks. Also heard on stay application. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari