Mahabub vs State of Uttarakhand & others.

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

i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 62 of 2017 under Section-3/5/11 of the

Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, P.S. Bhagwanpur District Haridwar.

ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.1 and 2 not harass and arrest the petitioner in view of the

impugned F.I.R. till the collection of credible evidence against the petitioner or till the filing of the report submitted under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.

The facts, relevant to the writ petition, are that, on 13.02.2018, police received information from Mukbir that the petitioner is indulged in cow

slaughtering. On receiving this information, police reached on the spot and recovered 110 Kg. beef, two knifes, two horns and one electronic

weighing machine. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that police tried to catch the petitioner; but, he flew away from the spot.

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. There is no public witness in the F.I.R. and F.I.R. has been registered without making any deep

enquiry.

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

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

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.

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

disclose offence. 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.

Stay application (CLMA No.1888 of 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''s below may be directed to decide his bail application same day.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that in case petitioner surrenders and moves bail application, the

same shall be decided by the Courts below very very expeditiously, in accordance with law.