Kawaljeet Singh @ Prince vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.197 of 2023, under Sections 8/15/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, with related reliefs.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, on 17.09.2023, the police was on patrolling duty. They spotted three persons in a Dhaba. When the police approached towards the Dhaba. A person started running away. He was followed, but somehow he could manage to escape from the place. The Police Constables Ravi Kant Shukla and Gajendra Singh, who had chased that person, later on told that he was the petitioner. Two persons were apprehended, and poppy straw was recovered from their possession.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no evidence against the petitioner except the statements of the co-accused, which is not admissible as evidence. He would submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation; co-accused have already been granted bail; the petitioner apprehends his arrest.

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.

It is true that statement of co-accused is a weak kind of evidence, but, in the instant case, the FIR discloses that the petitioner managed to escape from the place of occurrence. He was chased by the police and two Police Constables, according to the FIR, identified the petitioner. Poppy straw was allegedly recovered from the Dhaba. It is admitted that the petitioner is the owner of the Dhaba. What is the role of the petitioner? Whether he is involved in the offence? And if so, to what extent? These are the questions, which would fall for scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the case may be.

The FIR definitely discloses commission of offences. 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.

However, in so far as the apprehension of the petitioner with regard to arrest is concerned, arrest is not a routine and mechanical exercise to be carried out by the Investigating Officer. There are guidelines and statutory provisions before arrest is to be effected. This Court has no doubt that the Investigating Officer of the case would also follow all the statutory principles and guidelines that have been laid by the Higher Courts, in case need for arrest arises.