Abhishek vs State of Uttarakhand & others

V.K. Bist, J.

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

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 26.03.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 13 of

2018, under Section 452, 506, 504, 500, 509, 354 I.P.C. Police Station Ghansali, District Tehri Garhwal.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in Case Crime No. 13 of 2018,

under Section 452, 506, 504, 500, 509, 354 I.P.C. Police Station Ghansali, District Tehri Garhwal till the pendency of present petition.â€​

Allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.3 (complainant) is that, on 09.03.2018, petitioner, alongwith other co-

accused, came to the house of the complainant and asked the hand of the daughter of the complainant. Complainant and her family members informed

them that the marriage of the daughter of the complainant has already been fixed and asked them to return back. Thereafter, the accused persons

started threatening the daughter of the complainant as well her fiancé, namely, Sumit not to marry. Thereafter, the petitioner again came to her

house and threatened her daughter that he will get her marriage broken and blackmailed her by extending threat that he will viral her photographs and

videos on the internet. After that, the petitioner went to the house of Sumit and got her marriage broken.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that allegations made against the petitioner in the impugned F.I.R. are totally false and, therefore,

protection should be granted to the petitioner.

Learned Brief Holder vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submitted that allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature.

Therefore, interim relief should not be granted to the petitioner and the writ petition filed by him deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.

I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record.

The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of West Bengal. Vs. Swapna Kumar, 1982 (1) SCC 561, has held that if an offence is disclosed,

Court will not normally interfere with the investigation into the case, and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If the FIR,

prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence, the Court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the

lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences.

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of F.I.R. Contents of F.I.R. disclose offence and

it is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the case and, thereafter, either to file charge sheet or final report in the matter. It is not a fit case,

where the High Court should interfere in this criminal writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition

is dismissed.

Stay application (CLMA No.8269 of 2018) stands rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then prayed that in case offence is made out against the petitioner, in that event, the petitioner will surrender

before the Court concerned and will move the bail application and the concerned Court may be directed to decide his bail application same day. In my

view, every bail application should be considered and decided by the learned Court below without any unreasonable delay; but, needless to say that it

should be decided strictly in accordance with law. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that in case petitioner

surrenders and moves bail application, the same shall be decided by the concerned Court expeditiously, in accordance with law.