Himanshu Jain vs State of Uttarakhand & another

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 F.I.R. as case crime no. 126 of 2017, under Section 186, 332, 353, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Ranipur, District Haridwar (contained as annexure no. 1 to the writ petition).

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 and 2 not to harass and arrest the petitioner in view of the impugned F.I.R. till the collection of any credible evidence against the petitioner or till the submission of the report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C ."

On 03.05.2017, an F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no. 3 at P.S. Ranipur, District Haridwar against the petitioner, alleging therein that, since he is a Collection Amin of Bahadrabad, Tehsil & District Haridwar, he went to the firm of the petitioner in order to serve a citation with regard to the Value Added Tax. It is stated in the F.I.R. that, as soon as he entered in the factory premises of the petitioner, he was beaten by the petitioner and further abused and criminally intimidated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the matter. He submitted that the industrial plot was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1984 and the factory was established in the year 1989; but, subsequently, in the year 1992, petitioner suffered heavy loss. He further submitted that the recovery is not against the petitioner for the loan taken by him and, in fact, Value Added Tax of Rs. 1,05,000/- under the Value Added Tax Act was imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner availed legal remedy against the same and, due to interest, the same has not reached to Rs. 6,83,165/-. It is contended that, on the day, when respondent no. 3 came to the factory, he not only misbehaved with the parents of the petitioner; but, also snatched two keys of the rooms of the factory. It is further contended that petitioner requested him that sum of Rs. 6,83,165/- will be paid by him, inasmuch as, he is trying to sell his property and the estimated value of the said property is about Rs. 60,00,000/-. He submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner in the impugned F.I.R. are totally false and, therefore, protection should be granted to the petitioner.

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 F.I.R., 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.

I find that contents of F.I.R. disclose offence and it is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the case. 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. It is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and reach to the conclusion; either to file charge sheet or submit final report.

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. However, it is observed that if the petitioner appears/ surrenders before the Magistrate concerned and moves bail application, the same shall be decided by the concerned Magistrate expeditiously, if possible, same day.

Stay application (CLMA No. 5953 of 2017) stands rejected.

Let a certified copy of this judgment be issued by 06.06.2017.