USMAN vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

Present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for the records and quashing the impugned first information report

dated 06.04.2018 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition), lodged by the respondent no.3 on the basis of which, F.I.R No.125 of 2018, under

Section 3/5/11 of The  Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act, 2007 was registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar.Â

(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 till the collection of any credible evidence against the petitioner or till the filing of the report under Section 173 of

Cr.P.C.â€​

The facts, relevant to the writ petition, are that, on  6.04.2018, police received information from Mukbir that the petitioner alongwith two co-

accused are indulged in cow slaughtering. On receiving this information, police reached on the spot and recovered case property, which is mentioned

in the recovery memo. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that police tried to catch the petitioner and two co-accused; but, they fled away from the spot.

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 was not arrested from the spot and the house, where the alleged crime

was committed, does not belong to him.

Learned Deputy Advocate General 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.

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.6597/2018) stands rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted 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 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 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