Rahish Ahmad vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of an FIR No. 273 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 3/57 of The

Uttar Pradesh Mines and Minerals (Concession) Rules 1963, Police Station Bajpur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

According to the FIR, in the instant case, on 01.08.2020, Police intercepted a vehicle, which was carrying sand. There were two persons in the

vehicle, driver and conductor. They were asked to show the papers, which they showed. The royalty documents were found forged and on

questioning, those two persons revealed that it is the petitioner, who prepares forged royalty documents at a payment of Rs.500/-. This is this FIR,

which states that thereafter, the vehicle was taken into custody and the persons in the vehicle were arrested.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that there is no legally admissible evidence against the petitioner; he had no occasion to prepare a

forged document, on 01.08.2020 that being a holiday as it was Eid on that date; it was not at all probable that on the day of festival, the petitioner,

Muslim by religion would open the shop and forge documents. The petitioner never used such documents; nothing was recovered from him. It is

argued that, in fact, some time ago the persons, who were arrested, had approached the petitioner to prepare some forged documents to which he

denied. Thereafter, the petitioner was threatened to be implicated in some false case and now he has been falsely implicated in the instant case.

On behalf of the petitioner, it is also argued that FIR is delayed and not reliable because the source of light has wrongly been mentioned. As

according to the learned counsel, when the recovery-memo was written, there was no need for any external light as such.

Learned counsel for the State would submit that when arrested, the co-accused revealed the name of the petitioner as the person, who forged the

documents.

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Interference is not generally made, if the FIR discloses commission of

cognizable offence. In the instant case, according to the prosecution, based on forged documents minerals were being supplied, on a truck and two

persons were arrested along with the material. It is those persons, who revealed the name of the petitioner. What is the credibility of the statement of

the co-accused would definitely be tested during investigation. The Investigating Officer would enquire the role of the petitioner, but the factual

aspects cannot be examined in the instant writ petition. Therefore, no interference as such is warranted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner apprehends that the petitioner may be arrested without any evidence.

Arrest is not mechanical and routine act of an Investigating Officer. First and foremost, complicity of a person has to be established and thereafter,

the need to arrest is another consideration before the Investigating Officer, which he should weigh in his mind before he affects arrest. This Court has

no doubt that the Investigating Officer in the instant case shall also follow all the statutory provisions and directions of the Courts on arrest, in case the

occasion arises, in the instant case.

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.