IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.557 OF 2010 Dharmendra Rastogi ………Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & another …Respondents Dated: August 25, 2010 Sri RS Sammal, Adv. for petitioner Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 Sri Pawan Mishra, Adv. for the respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 7.7.2010 lodged by the respondent no.2 as Case Crime No.152/2010 u/s 342, 384, 395 IPC and 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. In nutshell the case of the prosecution is that respondent no.2 lodged an FIR against the petitioner stating that in June 2009 the petitioner came to him and enquired about the genuineness of a Nagmani and he also told him that he would pay fees of Rs.1.00 lac for that purpose. On seeing the said Nagmani, the respondent no.2 doubted the genuineness of the said Nagmani. At the instance of petitioner, the respondent no.2 went to Bareilly but nobody came there. After some days the petitioner came to him and informed that he had purchased the said Nagmani for Rs.35.00 lacs. On being called by the petitioner, the complainant went at the place informed by the petitioner at about 4 PM where already 9-10 persons were there who pounced upon him and snatched his two mobiles, wallet as well as the keys of his car, due to which he became astonished. The petitioner also told the complainant that the said Nagmani was not genuine and also told him that he (respondent no.2) was in connivance with the accused persons as a result of which he was cheated for Rs.35.00 lacs out of which Rs.10.00 lacs are with him (complainant). After threatening the complainant, the petitioner and his associates got two cheques each Rs.5.00 lacs from him and also took his Alto Car and directed him to get Rs.1.00 2 lacs in cash and also uttered caste indicated words. The accused also got his signatures forcefully on a Stamp paper and a blank paper. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the above case. Learned Addl. G.A. for the State opposed the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the petitioner, by leveling the allegations against the respondent no.2, is trying to escape from the criminal liability of the offence committed by him with the help of his associates, which is not permissible under the law. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as on perusal of FIR and other documents on record and also seeing the gravity of the offence, I am of the view that at this stage, prima facie offences punishable u/s 342/384/395 IPC & 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act are made out against the petitioner and the petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. (Dharam Veer, J.) 25.08.2010 Rajeev Dang