Virendra Dhiman vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3264 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.1456 of 2023
Virendra Dhiman                                       ....Petitioner

                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                     ....Respondents
Present:-
             Mr. Rajveer Singh and Pranav Singh, Advocates for the
             petitioner.
             Mr. M.A. Khan, A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuly, Brief Holder
             for the State.
             Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sachin
             Panwar, Advocate for the respondent no.4.

                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.0168 of

2023, under Sections 120-B, 420 and 388 IPC, Police Station

Khanpur, District Haridwar, with related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, a complaint, in respect of

rape related offences, was given against the nephew of the

informant by a person. In that matter, the petitioner and

others started blackmailing the family of the informant and

demanded Rs. 17 Lakhs or Rs. 23 Lakhs, or else it was

threatened that the nephew of the informant would be sent

behind bars. The FIR has other details as well.

4. The petitioner had earlier filed similar writ

petition, which he withdrew on 06.09.2023. It appears that,

thereafter, the petitioner moved an anticipatory bail

application (ABA No.881 of 2023), in which, on 12.10.2023.

notices were issued, and the next date fixed is 02.11.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that now case under Section 376- IPC has already been

lodged against the nephew of the informant. He would submit

that till the anticipatory bail application is taken up on

02.11.2023, the petitioner may be protected.

6. The petitioner could have sought protection in

the anticipatory bail application. There is a provision of ad-

interim anticipatory bail as well. It appears that having failed

in securing ad-interim anticipatory bail, the petitioner has

again tried to knock the door of this Court, by way of filing the

instant petition.

7. The FIR reveals very serious offences of

threatening to lodge an FIR pertaining to rape. What is its

truthfulness and credibility, it would fall for scrutiny during

investigation or trial, as the case may be. Therefore, this

Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any

interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be

dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

8. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 20.10.2023 Ravi Bisht