ARMAN SIDDIQUI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

“I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 05.01.2018 registered as F.I.R. No. 01 of 2018

under Section 376, 452 I.P.C., P.S. Tallital Nainital, District Nainital.

II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in F.I.R. No. 01 of 2018 under

Section 376, 452 I.P.C., P.S. Tallital Nainital, District Nainital till the pendency of present petition.â€​

An F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent no. 3, alleging therein that on 02.11.2017 at about 11:30 a.m. when the daughter of complainant was alone

in the house, the petitioner entered into the house of the complainant and committed rape with the daughter of the complainant. When the daughter of

the complainant told this incident to her family members, they went to the Police Chowki; but, the Chowki Incharge, instead of lodging F.I.R. called

the family of the complainant at Police Chowki at about 11:30 p.m.            Â

Thereafter, the marriage of the petitioner and daughter of the complainant was solemnized. But, the petitioner refused to take the girl of the

complainant with him and absconded from the house.  Â

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant crime. He submitted that the

respondent no. 3 just to create pressure upon the petitioner has lodged the F.I.R. He further submitted that since it is an admitted fact that the

marriage of the daughter of victim and petitioner was solemnized; therefore, the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is not made out against the

petitioner.  Â

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Contents of F.I.R. prima

facie disclose 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 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.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. [Stay Application No. 2816 of 2018 also stands dismissed].Â

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

before the Courts concerned & will move his bail application and the Courts concerned may be directed to decide his bail application on the same day.

Considering this submission of the learned counsel for petitioner, it is provided that if the petitioner surrenders before the Courts concerned and seeks

bail; his bail application shall be heard and decided by the Courts concerned expeditiously, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law.