MOHD. SHAHRUKH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

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

“i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 08.03.2018 bearing F.I.R. No. 103 of 2018 for the

offences punishable under Section 313, 493 & 506 of I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar.Â

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and directing the respondent no. 2 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with impugned

F.I.R. dated 08.03.2018 bearing F.I.R. No. 103 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Section 313, 493 & 506 of I.P.C. at Police Station Kotwali

Roorkee, District Haridwar.â€​

Allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.3 (complainant) is that, on the pretext of getting married with the

respondent no. 3, petitioner made physical relations with her and also did unnatural sex with her. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that, on 03.03.2018,

when the respondent no. 3 got pregnant, the petitioner gave medicines to her for terminating the pregnancy. When respondent no. 3 asked him to

marry with her, he denied her on the pretext that he is pursing his studies. It is stated that petitioner is again and again making physical relations with

her and is threatening her that in case she discloses anything to any one, he will do away her life.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. 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.

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.4187 of 2018) stands rejected. Â

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 concerned Court 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 concerned Court expeditiously, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law. Â