AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
20 paragraphs · 386 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
This matter is heard through video conferencing.
The petitioners seek quashing of an FIR No. 11 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Lansdowne, District Pauri-
Garhwal and also directions that petitioners may not be arrested pursuant to the FIR.
FIR in the instant case was lodged on 18.07.2020. According to it, in the night of 17.07.2020 informant was returning from Dhumakot Nainidanda,
on the way, he stopped the car at Rio resort, he raised his voice to call someone at the resort, but nobody responded. Thereafter, the informant and
one Ankit went upstairs and started using the toilet. Meanwhile, a person called security persons, beaten them and threatened them to life.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that entire FIR is false; whatever is written in the FIR did not happen; the resort was closed
during this COVID-19 pandemic; the informant with his friends entered the resort in inebriated condition and an altercation took place, but since the
informant happens to be a relative of one of the political leaders of the locality, the Police is repeatedly calling the petitioners and harassing them.
It is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the jurisdiction cannot be invoked on mere asking, and interference may not be made in
a routine unless, there are extraordinary and rare circumstances. The basic rule is that, if the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence,
interference may not be made.
It is true that FIR in the instant case is not named and admittedly, according to the petitioners, they are employees in the resort, where the alleged
incident took place. What is the truthfulness of the averments or what happened actually may not be examined in the instant petition. They are subject
matters to be tested during investigation or at the trial, as the case may be. Therefore, there is no reason to make any interference and the petition
deserves to be dismissed.
The writ petition is hereby dismissed.
If the Investigation Officer considers that arrest is to be made in the case, he must remind himself that arrest should not be made, in a routine and
mechanical manner and must follow all the statutory provisions and guidelines on the subject.