LEENA SINGH W/O UMESH VEER VIKRAM SINGH, KM. DIVYA SINGH D/O UMESH VEER VIKRAM SINGH AND UMESH VEER VIKRAM SINGH S/O LATE B.S. CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) BY means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the Petitioners have sought quashing of the First Information Report dated 13.07.2011, registered as Crime No. 116 of 2011, relating to offences punishable under Section 420, 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that complainant was Sales Representative cum clerk with NAFCO which is registered society of which Petitioner No. 2 is the Chief Promoter, and Petitioner No. 3 is Legal Advisor. It is pertinent to mention here that Petitioner No. 3 is father of the Petitioner No. 2, and husband of Petitioner No. 1. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that after services of wife of the Respondent No. 4 (complainant) were terminated the impugned First Information Report was got lodged. However, on perusal of the papers on record, this Court finds that Annexure -5 to the writ petition shows that Petitioners have taken a contradictory plea that Rs. 5,10,000/ - was paid by Monika Yadav (wife of the Respondent No. 4) to one Sudhanshu, which indicates that amount in question was paid.