ISHRAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

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

“i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. No. 0125 of 2018, under Section 3/5/11 of the Uttarakhand

Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar (contained as Annexure No.1) to this writ petition.

ii) 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 filing of the report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C.Â

The facts, relevant to the writ petition, are that, on 06.04.2018, police received information from Mukbir that the petitioner alongwith two co-

accused are indulged in cow slaughtering. On receiving this information, police reached on the spot and recovered case property, which is

mentioned in the recovery memo. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that police tried to catch the petitioner and two coaccused; but, they fled away from

the spot.  Â

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

protection should be granted to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot and the house, where the alleged

crime was committed, does not belong to him. Â

Learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submitted that allegations made against the petitioner 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 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.

 7. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of F.I.R. 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

Stay application (CLMA No. 4924/2018) stands rejected.

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

before the Court concerned and will move the bail application and the Court concerned may 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. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that in case

petitioner surrenders and moves bail application, the same shall be decided by the concerned Court expeditiously, in accordance with law.

Â