Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 231 (UTT)

SAHEED v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-04-10

V.K.BIST

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 07.02.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 35 of 2017 under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Pathri, District Dehradun. II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in Case Crime No. 35 of 2017 under Section 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S. Pathri, District Haridwar till the pendency of present petition. ” 2. Allegation in the F.I.R. is that a property dispute regarding partition of the property is going on between the complainant and his family members and, pursuant to which, complainant has filed a suit before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haridwar, due to which, petitioners are having enmity with the complainant. On 25.01.2017, at about 04:00 p.m. when the complainant had gone out of his house for some work, the petitioners started to assault the wife of the complainant and abused her, due to said attack, the wife of complainant had fracture on her hand and 2 also sustained injuries on other parts of body. Thereafter, the complainant’s wife telephonically informed the complainant about the said incident, on which, the accused persons also assaulted the complainant and, on raising hue and cry, various persons of locality gathered at the spot and saved the complainant and his wife. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners and complainant are blood relatives and it is admitted case of the complainant that a civil dispute regarding partition of property is going on between the parties, therefore, the complainant, just to pressurize the petitioners and to take advantage in the said civil case, has lodged the instant F.I.R. against the petitioners. He further submitted that, being annoyed with the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioners, the respondent no. 3 has lodged the F.I.R. in retaliation and as a counterblast. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no specific allegations have been made against the petitioners in the impugned F.I.R. and, in fact, vague and frivolous allegations have been made against the petitioners. 5. 3 has lodged the F.I.R. in retaliation and as a counterblast. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no specific allegations have been made against the petitioners in the impugned F.I.R. and, in fact, vague and frivolous allegations have been made against the petitioners. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the contents of the F.I.R., this Court finds that 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. It is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and reach to the conclusion; either to file charge sheet or submit final report. 3 6. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is provided that if the petitioners surrender before the Court concerned, their bail application shall be considered very expeditiously, preferably on the same day. 7. Stay application (CLMA No. 2586 of 2017) also stands dismissed.