SHAILENDRA SHARMA ALIAS MINTI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

“i. Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 2.5.2018 registered as FIR No. 0330 of 2018 U/s

354(d), 452, 294, 504 & 506 of IPC at Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, Distt. Haridwar lodged by the Respondent no. 3 as against the petitioner.

ii. Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the

impugned FIR dated 2.5.2018 registered as FIR No. 0330 of 2018 U/s 354(d), 452, 294, 504 & 506 of IPC at Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, Distt.

Haridwar lodged by the respondent no. 3.â€​ Â

On 02.05.2018, an F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioner alleging therein that she is a doctor by profession and is serving

the persons who are suffering from aliments since long at Haridwar. In the F.I.R., it is alleged that, from last few months, the petitioner, who is

running a gymnasium at Haridwar, is harassing her physically and mentally and he tried to exploit her sexually in his gymnasium. It is further alleged

in the F.I.R. that petitioner used to obscene talk with the complainant and told the complainant if she discloses anything to anyone, he will do away her

life. In the F.I.R., it is alleged that the petitioner always chases the complainant, which is proved from the mobile location of the petitioner and the

record of the obscene talks are kept in the mobile phone of the complainant. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner forcefully entered into the

house of the complainant and when she objected to it, the petitioner hurled abuses and went away by threatening her of dire consequences.   Â

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant crime and petitioner has nothing

to do with the aforesaid crime.Â

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Contents of F.I.R. prima

facie disclose commission of offence. In my opinion, it is not a fit case where the Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and thereafter to file either the charge sheet or final report in the matter. 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. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.Â

Stay Application (CLMA No. No. 6082 of 2018) stands rejected.Â

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner then prayed that in case offence is made out against the petitioner, in that event, the petitioner will surrender

before the Court concerned and will move the bail application and the Court concerned may be directed to decide his bail application expeditiously.Â

In my view, every bail application should be considered and decided by the learned Court below without any unreasonable delay; but, needless to say

that it should be decided strictly in accordance with law. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that in case

petitioner surrenders and moves bail application, the same shall be decided by the concerned Court expeditiously in accordance with law. Â