Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 112 (UTT)

Rohit Shah v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-03-16

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :- “I. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned F.I.R. No.0034 dated 12.03.2018 under Sections 332, 353, 504 and 506 IPC P.S. Mukhani, Haldwani District Nainital, lodged by respondent no.3 and also be pleased to stay the arrest of the petitioners during the pendency of this writ petition in this Hon’ble High Court, failing which the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury. (Contained in the FIR as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition).” 2. First information was registered by the complainant-respondent no.3 with the allegation that on information, respondent no.3 reached at Chambal Bridge; respondent no.3 saw that a vehicle was going with minor mineral. When respondent no.3 stopped the vehicle and asked for the legal papers of the vehicle they could not show the legal papers of the vehicle. As soon as the persons were arrested, the owner of the vehicle Rohit Shah and Kamal Ruwali (present applicants) alongwith 6-7 persons came there; they misbehaved and done marpeet with the forest officials. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged offence is less than 7 years and petitioner cannot be arrested without following the norms provided under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. He submits that the FIR in question is a result of animosity and due to non payment of money demanded by the respondents. He submits that the FIR has been lodged by respondent no.3 with ulterior motives and malafide intention to create pressure upon the petitioners. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the writ petition as well as the interim order and submitted that the petitioners assaulted the forest officials and done marpeet with them due to which the forest officials got injured. He submitted that in case the petitioners are arrested, the provisions under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. shall be followed. 5. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. In view of above and in view of statement of learned Deputy Advocate General, the writ petition is closed.