HARJEET SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

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

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report dated 20.5.2018, registered as FIR

No.0103 of 2018, under Section 323, 326, 504 & 506 of IPC, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of commanding the respondent no. 2 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with FIR No.0103 of

2018, under Section 323, 326, 504 & 506 of IPC, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital.â€​

On 20.5.2018, respondent no.3 lodged an FIR against the petitioner and one Jeevan, alleging therein that, on 15.5.2018 at 7:00 p.m. the petitioner

along with co-accused Jeevan came to the shop of the complainant on his Bolero Car and after parking car opposite to the shop of the complainant,

they started drinking wine inside the car. After drinking wine, they started abusing to the complainant. It is also alleged when the complainant stopped

them for abusing him, they again started abusing the complainant. It is further alleged that at the same moment, the father of the complainant, namely,

Jagan Singh came to the shop and on asking the accused persons not to abuse, the accused persons pushed him on a cauldron containing hot oil due to

which his father sustained burn injuries. It is also alleged that on his cry, the people of nearby place came to the spot and the accused persons left the

place and threatened the complainant of dire consequences.Â

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

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

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submitted that allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature.Â

Therefore, interim relief should not be granted to the petitioner and the writ petition filed by him deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.Â

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

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. Â

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be permitted to surrender and courts below be directed to decide his 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. It is provided that if petitioner surrenders before the Court concerned and

moves bail application, his bail application shall be considered by the Courts below expeditiously, preferably on the same day in accordance with law.