SURJAN SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

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

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned FIR dated 19.3.2018, registered as Case Crime No.79 of 2018,

under Section 376 & 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Nanakmata, District Udham Singh Nagar (Annexure No.1) lodged by respondent

no.3 against the petitioner.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos.1 & 2 not to harass and arrest the petitioner in view of

the impugned FIR dated 19.3.2018 till the collection of any credible evidence against the petitioner.â€​

On 19.3.2018, respondent no.3 lodged an FIR against the petitioner alleging therein that she had a love affair with the petitioner and on the pretext

of marriage, petitioner made physical relation with the respondent no.3. It is further alleged that the petitioner threatened respondent no.3, that if she

discloses anything to anyone, he will do away her life.Â

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. He submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case.Â

Learned A.G.A. 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.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 seriously opposed the writ petition, on the ground that, the consent was given due to misconception of

allurement of marriage. She further submitted that the petitioner threatened the complainant that, in case she discloses anything to anyone, he will do

away her life.Â

I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record. Â

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.

From perusal of FIR, I find that 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. Â

Stay Application (CLMA No.5942/2018) stands rejected.