Subhash Bhatt vs State of Uttarakhand & others

V.K. Bist, J.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for the records and quashing the F.I.R. dated 09.06.2018 lodged by the

respondent no. 3, on the basis of which, a Case Crime No. 262 of 2018, under Sections 342/354 of I.P.C. was registered at ROP Dhara Chauki, P.S.

Nagar Kotwali, District Dehradun.â€​

Allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.3 (complainant) is that complainant is working as salesgirl with Wood

Apple, which is owned by the petitioner. It is stated that, on 09.06.2018, petitioner took her to a flat situated towards Canal Road and closed the door

of the flat. Thereafter, the petitioner started molesting her. At this, complainant asked a glass of water from the petitioner and when he went to fetch

water, the complainant called her sister Shradha and informed her about the said incident. Thereafter, petitioner switched off her phone and told her

not to say anything to anyone.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that allegations made against the petitioner in the impugned F.I.R. are totally false and, therefore,

protection should be granted to the petitioner.

Learned Assistant Government Advocate vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submitted that allegations made against the petitioner are

serious in nature. Therefore, interim relief should not be granted to the petitioner and the writ petition filed by him deserves to be dismissed at the

threshold.

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 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 submission of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of F.I.R. Contents of F.I.R. disclose offence and

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

is dismissed.

Stay application (CLMA No.8213 of 2018) stands rejected.

Learned Senior 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 concerned Court may be directed to decide his bail application same

day. 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 Senior 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, preferably on the same day,

in accordance with law.