Gulista & another vs State of Uttarakhand & others

V.K. BIST, J.

This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 01.6.2018, being FIR No.117 of 2018, under Section

3/5/11 of Uttarakhand Cow Progeny (Protection) Act lodged by the respondent no.3 at P.S. Jhabera, District Haridwar against the petitioners

(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 petitioners in connection

with the impugned FIR dated 01.6.2018, being FIR No.117 of 2018, under Section 3/5/11 of Uttarakhand Cow Porgeny (Protection) Act, lodged by

the respondent no.3 at P.S. Jhabera, District Haridwar against the petitioners.â€​

On 01.6.2018, the complainant alongwith other police officials were on patrolling and when they reached at Village Devpur, they were informed by

the Sub Inspector, Kuldeep Singh that cow was being slaughtered in village Harjoli Jhojha. On the said information, the patrolling team reached the

alleged spot and found that accused persons were slaughtering the cow and when the police officials tried to apprehend them, they managed to ran

away.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that allegations made against the petitioners in the impugned F.I.R. are totally false and, therefore,

interim protection should be granted to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the instant case.

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submitted that allegations made against the petitioners are serious in nature. Therefore,

interim relief should not be granted to the petitioner and the writ petition filed by him deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record.

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.

From perusal of FIR, I find that contents of F.I.R. disclose offence and it is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the case and, thereafter,

either to file charge sheet or final report in the matter. It is not a fit case, where the High Court should interfere in this criminal writ petition moved

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

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

before the Courts below and will move bail application and the courts below may be directed to decide their bail application same day. In my view,

every bail application should be considered and decided by the learned Court below without any unreasonable delay; but, needless to say that it should

be decided strictly in accordance with law. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.1 is a lady and is a heart

patient, it is provided that if petitioners surrender before the Court concerned and move bail application, their bail application shall be considered by the

Courts below expeditiously, preferably on the same day in accordance with law.