RAVI KUMAR vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

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 First Information Report dated 25.03.2018, Case Crime No.271

of 2018, under Section 379, 411, 120-B of IPC & 4/21 of MMDR Act at P.S. Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar (contained Annexure No.1 to this

writ petition).

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent nos.1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioners in connection

with First Information Report dated 25.03.2018, Case Crime No.271 of 2018, under Section 379, 411, 120-B of IPC & 4/21 of MMDR Act at P.S.

Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar, during the pendency of present writ petition.â€​

Respondent no.3 got lodged an FIR on 25.03.2018 against the petitioner alleging therein that the vehicle was full of illegal minor minerals.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case. He submits that the FIR is nothing but is a

tactics to harass the petitioner by implicating in false ase. He submits that the Investigating Officer without investigating the matter is threatening the

petitioner for arrest, which is in violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner.

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.

From perusal of FIR, I find that 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

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be permitted to surrender and courts below be directed to decide his bail application

same day. It is provided that if petitioner surrenders before the Court concerned and moves bail application, his bail application shall be considered by

the Courts below expeditiously, preferably same day.