Dilshad Ali vs State of Uttarakhand & others

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the first information report dated 18.08.2017 lodged by respondent no.3 against the petitioner registered as F.I.R. No.92 of 2017 under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. and 3/57 Mining Act, P.S. Kelakhera, District Udham Singh Nagar ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 not to harass and arrest the petitioner in connection with the first information report dated 18.08.2017 lodged by respondent no.3 against the petitioner registered as FIR No.92 of 2017, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. and 3/57 Mining Act, P.S. Kelakhera, District Udham Singh Nagar."

On 18.08.2017, an FIR was registered against the accused persons by respondent no.3 alleging therein that the respondent no.3 got an information from the informant that some person illegally carrying out mining from the river, thereafter, on this information, when the complainant along with his team reached at the spot, he found that some persons were carrying out illegal mining

from the J.C.B., and the moment complainant reached at the spot, they ran away from the spot.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant crime. He submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence, as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submitted that from the bare perusal of the F.I.R., no offence, under Section 379, 411 is made out against the petitioner. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and no specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner.

Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that in this case, provision of Section 41 Cr.P.C. will certainly be followed.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner 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.

Considering all above facts and also considering the statement of learned Deputy Advocate General, the writ petition is dismissed. [Interim Relief Application No.11610 of 2017 also stands dismissed].