ZAKIR 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 to quash the first information report dated 26.02.2018, lodged by respondent

no.3 under Sections 323, 326, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. as F.I.R No.0075 of 2018 at Thana Kotdwar, District Pauri-Garhwal (Annexure no.1 to

the writ petition).Â

II.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.1 & 2, not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance to

first information report dated 26.02.2018, lodged by respondent no.3, under Sections 323, 326, 504 & 506 of I.P.C. as F.I.R No.0075 of 2018

at Thana Kotdwar, District        Pauri-Garhwal.â€​       Â

Respondent no.3 got lodged an FIR on 26.02.2018 with the allegation that on 08.01.2018 at about 06:00 p.m. when he was standing near the

Railway Station Kotdwar before the bone fire, the petitioner without any reason committed marpeet with him and pushed the complainant in the bone

fire due to which his hand was burnt and he also got injuries on his head. Thereafter, respondent no.3 was admitted to hospital for eight days Â

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case. He submits that the FIR is lodged after one

and half month’s delay and this fact in itself is sufficient to prove that the F.I.R. is false. He further submits that medical report shows that the

injuries are simple in nature. He submits that respondent no.3 was over drunk on the date of alleged incident and due to this reason he himself fell

down in the fire.Â

Learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the same and submitted that delay has already been explained in the F.I.R. He submitted that

allegations in the F.I.R. are serious in nature and petitioner does not deserve any interim protection. 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. Â

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. It cannot be said that from

the reading of the FIR no offence is made out. Whether the facts mentioned in the F.I.R are correct or not, is a matter of investigation. In my opinion

it is not a fit case where the Court should intervene. It is for the Investigating Officer either to file final report or charge sheet in the matter.Â

The writ petition is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be permitted to surrender and courts

below be directed to decide his bail application same day. In my view, the bail application should be considered and heard by the courts below without

any delay. It is, therefore, provided that if petitioner surrenders before the court concerned and moves bail application, his bail application shall be

considered by the courts below expeditiously, preferably same day.Â