Om Hari vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the F.I.R. No. 0031/2018, under Section 420 I.P.C., P.S. Khatima, District

Udham Singh Nagar, dated 27.012018 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition)

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of

F.I.R. No. 0031/2018, Under Section 420 I.P.C., P.S. Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, dated 27.01.2018 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ

petition), during the pendency of the proper investigation.

An F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant against the petitioner, alleging therein that on 14.09.2000, petitioner opened a loan account in the

name of Hari Kishan, son of Bhaglu at Nainital Cooperative Bank, Khatima. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that Hari Kishin, son of Bhagelu died on

14.06.1998. When complainant applied for passbook and other documents under the Right to Information Act then it came to the knowledge of

the complainant that petitioner by affixing his photographs, opened a loan account in the name of complainant''s father, who died in the year 1998.

By the said account, a loan of Rs. 1,18,000/- was taken by the petitioner. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that by using the name of complainant''s father,

petitioner opened a loan account in the bank and cheated him.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in fact, the account is not in running position, and petitioner has not opened the

said account. He submitted that there is a revenue case pending between the parties and petitioner developed the false story only to defeat the

purpose of revenue case and got registered the F.I.R.

I have seen the F.I.R. Allegation in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner has taken a loan of Rs. 1,18,000/- in the name of complainant''s father by

affixing his own photographs. This fact is a matter of investigation.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Contents of F.I.R. prima

facie disclose commission of offence. In my opinion, it is not a fit case where the Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. It is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and thereafter to file either the charge sheet or final report in the matter. 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.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. [Stay Application No. 1671 of 2018 also stands dismissed].

Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that in case offence is found to be made out against the petitioner, in that event, the petitioner

will surrenders before the Court concerned & will move the bail application and the Magistrate concerned may be directed to decide his bail

application expeditiously. Considering this submission of the learned counsel for petitioner, it is provided that if the petitioner surrenders before the

court concerned and seeks bail; his bail application shall be heard and decided expeditiously, if possible on the same day, but strictly in accordance

with law.