Sanyogita & others vs State of Uttarakhand & another

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 28.04.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 142 of 2017, under Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324, 325, 504 & 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, 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. 142 of 2017, under Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324, 325, 504 & 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar till the pendency of the present petition."

On 28.04.2017, an F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no. 3 at P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar against the petitioners and others, alleging therein that, on 27.04.2017 at about 07:00 p.m., the petitioners and others entered into the house of the complainant. They abused and assaulted the mother of the complainant and other family members with sharp edged weapons and threatened them with dire consequences.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners in the impugned F.I.R. are totally false and, therefore, protection should be granted to the petitioners.

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 F.I.R., 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 find that contents of F.I.R. disclose offence and it is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the case. 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. It is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and reach to the conclusion; either to file charge sheet or submit final report.

Though, in normal circumstances, this Court does not interfere in the criminal writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; but, considering the fact that petitioner no. 1 is a lady and

petitioner nos. 4 & 5 are minor, it is directed that, till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner nos. 1, 4 & 5 in connection with F.I.R. dated 28.04.2017, registered as Case Crime No. 142 of 2017, under Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324, 325, 504 & 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, provided they fully cooperate with the investigating agency in the investigation of the case. The petitioner nos. 1, 4 & 5 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when he directs them. In case some credible material is found against the petitioner nos. 1, 4 & 5, it will be open for the Investigating Officer to take further action in accordance with law.

So far petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are concerned, this Court does not thinks it appropriate to interfere with the investigation. Consequently, the writ petition so far it relates to petitioner nos. 2 & 3 stands dismissed. However, it is directed that in case petitioner nos. 2 & 3 appear/surrender before the Magistrate concerned and move bail applications, the same shall be decided by the concerned Magistrate expeditiously. Stay application (CLMA No. 5978 of 2017) is, accordingly, disposed of.

Let notice be issue to respondent no. 3, returnable at an early date, by registered post, acknowledgment due.

List this matter after three weeks. In the meantime, counter affidavit may be filed.