Sattar vs State of Uttarakhand & others

Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for following reliefs:

"a- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 14.04.2017 registered as Case Crime No.204 of 2017 under sections 8 / 18 / 20 NDPS Act at P.S. Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar (contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.)

b- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding /directing the respondent nos.1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioners in Case Crime No.204 of 2017 under sections 8 / 18 / 20 NDPS Act at P.S. Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar during the pendency of present writ petition."

Allegations in First Information Report is that applicant with other persons was caught with intoxicating drugs.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is not a case of section 302 IPC but at the most it is case of section 306 IPC. He submits that deceased was working in the house of the petitioners for long time and on the fateful day they had gone to bring her daughter from school and deceased was with their 2 years son in the house. He submits that when petitioners came to house they found that the door was broken and she was found hanging. He submits that this cannot be said that petitioners can be held guilty under section 302 IPC.

Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that it is a clear cut case of murder. He submitted that in the FIR it is written that some injuries were found on the body of the deceased and she was murder. He further submitted that in such cases, interim protection should not be granted and FIR should not be quashed.

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.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. I have seen that primafacie, offence is clearly made out against the petitioners. Whether the facts mentioned in the F.I.R are correct or not, is a matter of investigation. In my opinion it is not a fit case where the Court should intervene. It is for the Investigating Officer either to file final report or charge sheet in the matter.

At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are having two minor children aged about 6 years and 2 years. He submits that in case bail application of Smt. Mehga Luthra is moved, same be considered same day.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, it is provided that if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned and seek bail application, their bail application shall be considered expeditiously, preferably same day.