Shameem And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seek to quash of the FIR No. 499 of 2020, under Sections 8/21/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Kotwali Manglor, District Haridwar and also seek directions that they may not be arrested pursuant to it.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through Video Conferencing.

According to the FIR, on 10.08.2020, from the possession of Irfan and Salman smack weighing 300 gm. And 100 gm. respectively was recovered. They revealed it to the Police that it is the petitioners, who had given them money to purchase the smack. They were to give the smack to the petitioners, who sell it at a high price in Manglor area.

Learned counsel for the petitiones would submit that the petitioner no. 1 is a handicapped person; the only allegation is an oral statement of the co-accused; petitioners' father is a member of Nagar Panchayat; they have been politically falsely implicated and that the petitioners would cooperate with the investigation.

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, smack in the commercial quantity was recovered from two persons. It is those two persons, who revealed the name of petitioners. That the petitioners gave money for purchase, and the petitioners would sell the smack at higher price in that area. What is its truthfulness of the averments is not to be ascertained in these proceedings. It is up to the investigating officer to scrutinise the statement of the co-accused. Therefore, what is the credibility and reliability of the averments in the FIR, are the matters subject to scrutiny during the investigation or at the trial, as the case may be. This Court cannot and should not examine these factual aspects. Hence, no interference as such is warranted.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Police be directed to follow the statutory directions. It impliedly means that the arrest should not be made without basis.

Needless to say, arrest is not a mechanical act of the Investigating Officer. First and foremost, he has to ascertain the complicity of a person in the offence and thereafter, to weigh in his mind the need for arrest. This Court has no doubt that the Investigating Officer, in the instant case, shall also follow the law on the subject of arrest, if any occasion to arrest arises in the instant case.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.