Colonel Suman Negi Retd. vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 20 March, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Uttarakhand High Court

Colonel Suman Negi Retd. vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 20 March, 2017

Bench: V.K. Bist

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

              Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 325 of 2017

Colonel Suman Negi (Retd.)                              .....Petitioners
                            Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others.                         ...Respondents
Colonel Suman Negi, petitioner, in person.
Mr. A.S. Gill, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Milind Raj, Brief Holder for the
State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1.


                            Dated: 20th March, 2017


Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"i. Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari directing the Respondent No. 2, 3, 4 & 5 to place on record the complete employment details of the claimant/wife to enable fair trial.

ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent no.1 to provide full opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case by examining all records and defer the arguments till full facts, as ordered, are placed on record."

2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that his marriage was solemnized with Smt. Priya Negi as per Hindu Rites and customs on 19.02.1999. Out of the wedlock, two sons were born. According to the petitioner, he and his wife are living separately. His wife filed a petition before the Family Court, Dehradun under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance. It is alleged that Smt. Priya Negi is working with the respondent institution. Hence, this writ petition.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that he filed an application before the trial Court for issuing direction to the schools for placing the employment details of the wife of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, orders were passed; but, in spite of the orders, the details have not been produced.

4. I have considered the submission advanced by the petitioner. In my view, the prayer no.1 made by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 to place on record the complete employment details of the claimant/wife to enable fair trial cannot be issued by the High Court in this criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, prayer no. 1 is rejected. It is for the petitioner to approach the Court, which is dealing with the matter.

5. Petitioner then submitted that his prayer no.2 seeking more time may be allowed. This prayer also cannot be allowed. Consequently, prayer no. 2 is also rejected. It is for the petitioner to approach the Court concerned and move an application seeking more time.

6. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

(V.K. Bist, J.) 20.03.2017 Arpan

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court