IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 627 of 2006 (M/B) 1. Amar Singh S/o Dal Singh, R/o Shahpur, P.S. Khanpur, District Haridwar. 2. Raj Singh S/o Raghubeer, R/o Shahpur, P.S. Khanpur, District Haridwar. 3. Rajbeer Singh S/o Kalu, R/o Rajbpur, P.S. Laksar. 4. Kabaj Singh S/o Shuk Ram, R/o Village Rajbpur, P.S. Laksar. 5. Rajesh Pavar S/o Pitambar Singh, R/o Village Ghasoti, P.S. Rampur, District Shahranpur. …………. Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Superintendent of Police, Haridwar. 2. Station Officer, P.S. Khanpur, District Haridwar. 3. Shiv Prakash S/o Chote Lal, R/o Village Hastmole, P.S. Khanpur, District Haridwar, Residing at present Nagri Lolpur, Tehsil Bhartana, District Etava. ………. Respondents. Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioners. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Mr. M.S. Tyagi, the learned counsel for the petitioners is heard on admission. 2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: “a. a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. In case crime no. 31 of 2006 U/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of I.P.C. Police Station Khanpur, District Haridwar (containing Annexure No. 12) to this Writ Petition. b. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 & 2 not to harass the petitioners in view of the impugned F.I.R. till the collection of any credible evidence against the petitioners and till the filing of the charge sheet. c. to pass a suitable writ, order or direction in favour of petitioners and against the respondents which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the present case. d. to award the cost of the present writ petition to the petitioners. 3. The petitioners are seeking quashing of First Information Raport Annexure No.12 lodged by respondent No.3 against the petitioners, wherein serious allegations of fabrication of a forged Will purporting to be of respondent No.3 Shiv Prakash and showing respondent No. 3 Shiv Prakash as dead have been leveled against the petitioners. 4. The relevant portion of the First Information Report lodged by respondent No.3 against the petitioners reads as follows: ^^ijUrq izkFkhZ dh mDr Hkwfe dks QthZ dkxt rS;kj dj diV iwoZd izkFkhZ dh dfFkr e`R;q j[kh gS izkFkhZ dh dfFkr e`R;q fnukad 21-3- 03 dks xzke gLrekSyh esa n’kkZrs gq, mDr lEifRr dks foi{kh jktflag iq= j?kqohj flag iq= o vej flag iq= nyflag fuoklh xzke ’kkgiqj Fkkuk [kkuiqj o jktohj flag iq= dkyw o dkot flag iq= lq[kjke fuoklhx.k jtriqj Fkkuk ydlj ftyk gfj}kj rFkk jktsUnz iokj iq= firkEcj flag fuokjh xzke ?kkLkkSrh Fkkuk jkeiqj ftyk lgkjuiqj us vkil esa lkt dj ,d jk; gksdj dfFkr olh;r rS;kj dj mDr lEifRr dks gM+Ik fy;k gSA** 5. The petitioner’s stand that third respondent Shiv Prakash is an imposter and not the real Shiv Prakash, who in fact has died as per the death certificate (Annexure No.2), is yet to be examined by the Instigating Agency, as according to the third respondent, the death certificate is also a forged one like the Will (Annexure No.1) in favour of the petitioners. 6. Considering the serious nature of the allegations against the petitioners in the First Information Report, we are of the opinion that no case warranting quashing of the First Information Report lodged by the third respondent against the petitioners and the case registered against them, is made out. 7. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is, hereby, dismissed summarily. 8. With the above order, CLMA No. 6406 of 2006 also stands dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 25.05.2006 25.05.2006 G