Ankit Rawat vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 17.04.2017, registered as case crime no.212/2017, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506, 504 & 406 of IPC at P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Dehradun (contained as Annexure no.1 to this writ petition). ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent nos.1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioner in case crime no.211/2017, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506, 504 & 406 of IPC at P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Dehradun, during the pendency of present writ petition."

On 17.04.2017, an F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no.3 at P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Dehradun against the petitioner and others, alleging therein that on 15.02.2016 the petitioner told the complainant that his brother-in-law Vinay Bhatt is well known in Secretariat and assured him to give him job in Secretariat. On 16.02.2017, the petitioner took the complainant to Secretariat to meet his brother-in-law Vinay Bhatt, where they meet on the main gate of Secretariat. Accused Vinay Bhatt assured the complainant to give him appointment in Secretariat and demanded `8,50,000/- in lieu thereof. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on the assurance of the petitioner and Vinay Bhatt, the complainant deposited the aforesaid amount in the account of Vinay Bhatt and also gave some amount in cash. It is further alleged that the petitioner and Vinay Bhatt also conducted interview of the complainant in a room at Secretariat and gave assurance that soon he will get the joining letter and subsequently issued a forged joining letter to the complainant. On being asked by the complainant for his appointment, the petitioner and Vinay Bhatt refused to return the money and also threatened to kill him.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made against the petitioner in impugned F.I.R. are totally false. According to him, main role is assigned to Vinay Bhatt in the F.I.R. in whose account money was deposited by the complainant and the present applicant has been made scapegoat in the instant case. Per Contra, learned Brief Holder submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. On instructions, he submitted that it has come during investigation that some amount was also deposited into the account of the present petitioner by the complainant. He further submitted that the present petitioner was one of them, who arranged fake interview.

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. Specific allegations are levelled against the present petitioner in the F.I.R., which prima facie disclose the commission of offence. 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 petitioner surrenders before the court concerned and seeks bail, his bail application shall be decided, expeditiously. [Stay application CLMA No.4139 of 2017 also stands dismissed].