Mohd. Kurban vs State of Uttarakhand & others

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:- "(i) A writ, order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR of case crime no.334 of 2015 under Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities Act, P.S. Kotwali City Dehradun, District Dehradun (Contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition).

(ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos.1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioner till the filling of the charge sheet.

An FIR was registered on 06.12.2015 by respondent no.2 at Police Station Kotwali, City Dehradun, District Dehradun with the allegation that petitioner along with other accused persons, in the name of a gang, committed cheating by taking loan from bank. It is stated that it is a gang and due to fear of this gang, the common people of the society are also panic and nobody has made complaint against this gang of which the petitioner is also a member.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a general order supplier by profession and one Sushil Kumar has taken loan of car and he was the guarantor of that loan. He submits that petitioner has not committed any cheating. He submits that petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency as the FIR is a result of political vengeance. He submits that there is misuse of process of law.

Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that petitioner and other co-accused persons are absconding and NBW,s have been issued against them by the competent court. He submitted that the petitioner is involved in gangster and anti social activities as petitioner and other co-accused persons have cheated the banks and two F.I.R.,s have been registered against them. He submitted that petitioner comes in the category of persons engaged in gangster and anti social activities. Thereofre, the FIR should not be quashed.

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 submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Whether the petitioner is actually involved or not, is a matter of investigation. In my opinion it is not a fit case where the Court should intervene. It is for the Investigating Officer either to file final report or charge sheet in the matter.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case petitioner''s involvement is found, in that event, liberty be given to him to surrender and his bail application be decided same day. Considering his submission, it is provided that if the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned and seeks bail application, his bail application shall be considered expeditiously, preferably same day, in accordance with law. [Stay application no.10559 of 2017 also stands disposed of.