MOHD ARIF Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner, by means of present criminal writ petition, seeks to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report No. 81 of 2013, registered at police station, Vasant Vihar, District Dehradun on 22.11.2013, so far as the same relates to the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks to quash all proceedings emanating there from, including the order dated 01.01.2014, whereby processes under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. were issued against him. A further prayer has also been made to issue a mandamus commanding and directing the authorities to stay all the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in relation to aforesaid FIR and later on added sections by the police during the investigation of the case. Further a direction in the nature of mandamus has been sought to direct the authorities to transfer the investigation to some independent investigating agency, i.e., Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), opposite p1y no. 4, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) A first information report was lodged by respondent no. 5 against three named accused persons on 22.11.2013, at police station, Vasant Vihar for the offences punishable under Sections 355 and 504 of IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. According to the first information report, on 16.11.2013, the informant received threatening calls from mobile nos. 9557239190, 08126572963 and 9897946880. They made their demands and threatened that if the same was not met, he will be defamed. Informant came to know that some news was being telecasted against him on Channel One. Informant also received threatening calls and SMS from mobile nos. 9557239190, 08126572963 and 9897946880. They were demanding money and were also asking for supply of confidential official documents.

(3.) DURING the course of investigation, the petitioner was wanted under Sections 384, 389, 109, 120 -B and 504 IPC and Section 67 -A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, but his arrest could not be affected.