AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 378 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.415 of 2023, under Sections 8/21/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, with related reliefs.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
According to the FIR, 7.15 grams smack was recovered from the possession of the co-accused, who then revealed that he works for the petitioner, and after selling the smack, he deposits the money with the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that merely on the basis of the statement given by the co-accused, the petitioner has been named. There is no evidence against the petitioner.
It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of offence, generally, no interference is warranted unless there are compelling circumstances to do so.6. A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that, in fact, the petitioner is not named as an accused in the FIR. It is true that in the body of the FIR, it is recorded that the co-accused revealed it to the police that he works for the petitioner and deposits the money of the sale proceeds with the petitioner.
Mere statement of co-accused is definitely a weak kind of evidence. But, then, at the stage of recording of the FIR, when the investigation is underway, the Investigating Officer would test the credibility of the statement of the co-accused, as to whether the petitioner, in any manner, is involved in the case or not. He may have occasion to see the bank transactions or call details, or any other such material, so as to verify the statement of the co-accused.
The FIR definitely discloses commission of offences. Smack, according to the FIR, has been recovered from the co-accused. Insofar as the role of the petitioner is concerned, as stated, it would find scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the case may be. At this stage, the FIR may not be quashed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
The petition is dismissed in limine.