- (1.) HEARD Sri R.P. Yadav and Sri Nawneet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and Sri Mohd. Irfan, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) THE petitioner Tulsi Ram had preferred this writ petition with the following prayer: 1."to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 08.09.2013 in Case crime No. 428 of 2013 under sections 364, 506 IPC, Police Station Swar, District Rampur (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.) 2.To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of Case Crime No. 428 of 2013 under sections 364, 506 IPC, Police Station Swar, District Rampur. 3.To issue such other and further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; so that justice be done. 4.To award cost of the writ petition throughout to the petitioner as against the respondents."
(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation made in the impugned FIR are false and frivolous, in fact the kidnapping of the victim Ram Swaroop has not taken place, such allegation has been made only because the victim and two others namely Mahendra and Ram Sood were accused in case crime No. 1214 of 2009, under sections 376, 323 IPC, P.S. Swar, District Rampur. The allegation against him and other co -accused was that they committed the rape with Km. Shakuntala @ Babita aged about 14 years and son of the respondent No. 3 namely Jai Singh had lodged the FIR against the petitioner and Battu Lal in case crime No. 1089 of 2010 under sections 420, 467, 468 IPC, P.S. Swar, District Rampur. The FIR has also been lodged by Jai Singh against the petitioner Preetam Singh and Battu Lal in case crime No. 724 of 2011 under section 307/ 504 IPC, P.S. Swar,District Rampur. The petitioner himself is hiding to save his skin from criminal liability. The impugned FIR has been lodged so that political pressure may be developed upon the respondent No. 3 and his family members to enter into a compromise. In such circumstances, the impugned FIR may be quashed and if it not quashed the arrest of the petitioner could be stayed during investigation of the impugned FIR. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and respondent no. 3 that impugned FIR has been lodged by respondent No. 3 and the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioners. The main allegation against the petitioner and other co -accused persons is that they kidnapped the son of the respondent No. 3, son of the respondent no. 3 namely Ram Swaroop has not been recovered, the accused persons are extending the threat of life to the respondent No. 3, the enmity between the parties is admitted and on the basis of the allegation made in the impugned FIR prima facie cognizable offence is made out, therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned FIR may be rejected and arrest of the petitioner may be stayed. The present writ petition is devoid of merits, the same may be quashed.;