SHASHAIKANT JOSHI AND OTHERS vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

Since, learned counsel for the petitioners supplied the required papers indicating the case crime number, hence, the defect pointed out by the

Registry, is ignored.Â

Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

“(I) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the F.I.R. no. 0145 dated 5-5-2018 lodged by the respondent no. 3 under

Section 147, 332, 353, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. & 26 Forest Act registered as case crime no. 0145 of 2018 at Thana Kotdwar District Pauri Garhwal so

far as relates to the petitioners. .

(II) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing to the respondents’ authorities not to arrest the petitioner

or not to take any coercive measure for the arrest of the petitioner on the basis of the F.I.R. dated 5-5-2018 at Thana Kotdwar, during the

investigation.â€​ Â

On 03.05.2018, an F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioners alleging therein that when the complainant along with other

forest officials came back to the Head Office Paniyali, Kotdwar, they saw a tractor trolley loading the illegal minor mineral from the bank of Malan

River. When the complainant reached near to the tractor then suddenly the driver started to ply the tractor towards the complainant but the

complainant escaped anyhow. When the complainant chased the tractor driver, the driver fled away from the spot leaving the tractor. Thereafter, the

complainant seized the tractor and when it was being carried towards the Range Office, the petitioners along with other co-accused with the common

intention threatened them that they will do away their lives. Furthermore, they assaulted the driver of the Forest Department and also hurled

abuses. Â

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have falsely been implicated in the instant crime. He submitted that

petitioners are not present at the spot.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. 6534 of 2018) stands rejected.Â

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners then prayed that in case offence is made out against the petitioners, in that event, the petitioners will

surrender before the Court concerned and will move their bail applications and the Court concerned may be directed to decide their bail applications

expeditiously. 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 petitioners, it is

observed that in case petitioners surrender and moves bail applications, the same shall be decided by the concerned Court expeditiously preferably on

the same day in accordance with law. Â