Amar Singh Pundir & Others vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i)Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the first information report dt.16.10.2016 (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition), lodged by the respondent no.3 on the basis of which a case crime no.168 of 2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC was registered at Police Station Raipur, District Dehradun, so far as it relates to the petitioners."

As per prosecution story, complainant Rajpal Singh moved an application to S.I.T., Dehradun on the basis of which a report was lodged with P.S. Raipur, on 16.10.2016, mentioning therein that his grand father late Abbal Singh had purchased 18 bighas of land in Nathuwala, Dehradun. His grand father had 6 sons, including the father of complainant. After the death of his grand father, aforesaid land came into share of the sons of the grand father, including the share of father of complainant, his Tau and uncles, having 3 bighas each. On 11.09.2009, his Tau Bhagwan Singh died and co-accused Pratap Singh Rana and his associates

under a conspiracy by impersonating Bhagwan Singh (deceased) sold the land through two fake deeds.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case. According to him, the role of petitioner no.1 is that he is the witness in the sale deed and the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are the bonafide purchasers. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner no.1 is a chronic patient of headache and his mother is also ill, whereas the petitioner nos.2 and 3 are women, aged about 62 and 75 years, respectively, who are also suffering from old age diseases.

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 submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. In my opinion, it is not a fit case where the Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and thereafter to file either the charge sheet or final report in the matter.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, it is provided that if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned and seek bail, their bail application shall be heard and decided very very expeditiously by the courts below, if possible on the same day. [Stay application CLMA No.6572 of 2017 also stands dismissed].