High CourtsSingle Bench

Iqaval Ahmad vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 29 September 2020 · Citation: (2020) 09 UK CK 0062

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 8, 21 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1572 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

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 · 336 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

Petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No. 272 of 2020, under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Banbhoolpura, District Nainital.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record.

3.

According to the FIR, on 16.07.2020, a Wasim was arrested with 4.5 gm. smack. He revealed to the police that he had got the smack from the petitioner, who is his father.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner was neither arrested with any contraband nor anything was recovered from him and the police is still harassing him. Apprehension is with regard to arrest.

5.

The writ petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR and it is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If FIR discloses commission of offence, interference is generally not warranted. Undoubtedly, nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the recovery was allegedly made from a Wasim. It is he, who allegedly named the petitioner, as a person from whom, he got the smack. What is the role the petitioner it is definitely subject matter of investigation. This Court cannot make any observation or draw any conclusion at this stage. Therefore, no interference as such is warranted.

6.

Apprehension is raised that police is harassing and they may arrest the petitioner without there being any evidence against the petitioner. Undoubtedly, arrest is not a mechanical and routine task of the Investigating Officer (IO). First and foremost, the IO has to establish the complicity of the person in the offence on the basis of legally admissible evidence and thereafter, he has to weigh in his mind, the need for arrest.

7.

This Court has no doubt that the IO in the instant case, shall follow all the statutory provisions and directions on the subject, if such an occasion arises in the instant case.

8.

With the above observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.