Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 108 (UTT)

Bhim Ratan Rahul v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-03-04

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. A First Information Report has been lodged by the respondent no.3 which has been registered as FIR No.11 of 2016 under Sections 420/467/468/471 of IPC, at Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar against the petitioner. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has approached this Court for relief. 2. The petitioner is a real estate developer and running a real estate company, namely Pyramid Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. It appears that the petitioner took a huge amount of Rs.1,34,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Four Lakh only) from the complainant and his family members for the sale of plot and apartment. Since, this was not done, the complainant/respondent no.3 asked for money which was not returned and consequently First Information Report was lodged by respondent no.3 under the aforesaid sections. 3. This writ petition was filed for protection and for quashing of the First Information Report by the petitioner, which came up before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 28.01.2016 where following order was passed:- “Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Rautela, Government Advocate for the State. Mr. Manish Arora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, undertakes to serve respondent no.3 dasti for 03.02.2016. List on 03.02.2016. IA No.547 of 2016 stands disposed of accordingly.” 4. Thereafter, again the matter was listed before the learned Single Judge on 10.02.2016, in which following order was passed:- “Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Rawal, AGA for the State. List on 22.02.2016. Urgency application stands disposed of.” 5. Now, the matter before this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3-Mr. Ravi Joshi has given a statement that there are many cases of similar nature against the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner is a serial offender in such matters and no indulgence to be given to the petitioner. 6. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in all the three cases the petitioner has received interim protection by this Court. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is hereby dismissed.