Mukarram & another vs State of Uttarakhand & others

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

i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 29.12.2017 registered as Case Crime No.

453/2017 under Section-3/5/11 of Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act 2007 P.S. Bhagwanpur District Haridwar.

ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in Case Crime No.

453/2017 under Section-3/5/11 of Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act 2007 P.S. Bhagwanpur District Haridwar till the pendency of

present writ petition.

The facts, relevant to the writ petition, are that, on 29.12.2017, police received information from Mukbir that some persons are indulged in cow

slaughtering. On receiving this information, police reached on the spot and recovered 80 Kg. beef, 1 skin and one alive cow and a calf. It is also

stated in the F.I.R. that two persons were arrested from the spot; whereas, the petitioners were said to have been flew 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.

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

nature. Therefore, interim relief should not be granted to the petitioners and the writ petition filed by them 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. 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.

Stay application (CLMA No.1619 of 2018) stands rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that in case offence is made out against the petitioners, in that event, the petitioners will

surrender before the Court concerned and will move the bail applications and the Court''s below may be directed to decide their bail applications

same day. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that in case petitioners surrender and move bail

applications, the same shall be decided by the Courts below expeditiously, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law.