Basant Vashishtha vs State of Uttarakhand and others

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. No.22 of 2017 dated 17.03.2017, relating to offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kathgodam, District Nainital.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant crime and no offence u/s 323, 504 and 506 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. Allegations levelled in the FIR are totally false and frivolous. Further, there is delay of ten days in lodging of the FIR, which has not been explained. Learned counsel prayed that the present writ petition may be disposed of considering the judgment in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, by directing the respondents not to take coercive steps against the petitioner during the pendency of investigation.

This Court is of the view that the writ petition cannot be disposed of by granting relief to the petitioner unless complainant is served and heard. It is the right of the complainant to be heard by the Court. If it is not done, in that event, the complainant will never come to know about the order passed by this Court and the petitioner, against whom F.I.R. is registered at the instance of the complainant, will enjoy the fruits of order without knowledge of the complainant. Moreover, while deciding the petition finally, the prayer for quashing the F.I.R. is either to be allowed or rejected.

I have considered the submissions of learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Specific allegations have been made against the petitioner in the F.I.R., which discloses the commission of offence. In the opinion of the Court, 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 the final report in the matter.

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is provided that if the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned and moves bail application, his bail application shall be decided, expeditiously. [Application for ad-interim mandamus CLMA No. 3201 of 2017 also stands dismissed].