AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief:
“i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the F.I.R. bearing no.0016 dated 17.04.2018, lodged by the respondent no.
3, registered at Police Station Banbasa, District Champawat, U/s 452, 354, 504, 506 of I.P.C. (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition).Â
Allegation against the petitioners in the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.3 (complainant) is that, on 16.03.2018, the petitioners entered into her
house; pushed her and, while hurling abuses, threatened her by saying that if they don’t give statement against Jitendra Verma, they will do away
their life and will not permit them to live in Banbasa. When she made hue and cry, her mother-in-law came downstairs and the petitioners, by
pushing her, fled away from the spot.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that allegations made against the petitioners in the impugned F.I.R. are totally false and, therefore,
protection should be granted to the petitioners. He submitted that, in fact, the petitioner no.1 had filed a complaint against Jitendra Verma, Shekhar
Verma and against the husband of the respondent no. 3, namely, Guddu. In that case, Guddu has been convicted and has been sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. He submitted that, on the day of d judgment, Jitendra Verma, Shekhar Verma and husband of the
respondent no. 3, namely, Guddu abused the petitioner no. 1 and assaulted him. Thereafter, the petitioner no. 1 again filed a criminal complaint
against them. It is alleged that when the husband of respondent no. 3 came to know about the filing of the aforesaid compliant, he, in order to take
revenge from the petitioners, lodged the impugned F.I.R. Â
Learned Brief Holder vehemently opposed the writ petition. He referred to the statement of respondent no. 3 recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C., in which she has supported the prosecution version. He submitted that allegations made against the petitioners are serious in nature.Â
Therefore, interim relief should not be granted to the petitioners and the writ petition filed by them 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.
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. The Investigating Officer shall investigate the matter in a very careful manner.
8.However, considering the argument of learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 had filed a complaint against the husband of
respondent no. 3 & two others and the husband of respondent no. 3, in order to take revenge, has got lodged the impugned F.I.R., it is directed that in
case the petitioners surrender before the Court concerned and moves the bail applications, the learned Courts below shall decided the bail applications
of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law. Â