Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 116 (UTT)

Shabnam v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-03-19

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. 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 F.I.R. dated 6.2.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 82 of 2018 under Section 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. (during investigation included Section 302 I.P.C.) P.S. Laksar District Haridwar. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in Case Crime No. 82 of 2018 under Section 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. (during investigation included Section 302 I.P.C.) P.S. Laksar District Haridwar till the pendency of present writ petition.” 2. Allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.3 (complainant) is that, on 01.02.2018, the petitioner alongwith Furkana, Hina and Fati went to the house Ms. Bohati, who is sister-in-law of the complainant. It is stated that Ms. Bohati was not at her house and her children were there. The petitioner alongwith three others abused in her house. When Ms. Bohati returned back and came to know about the said incident, she went to the house of the accused, where the accused persons assaulted her on the pretext that Ms. Bohati sat in the Tempo Rickshaw of the husband of accused Furkana. 3. 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. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submitted that allegation made against the petitioner is serious in nature. Therefore, interim relief should not be granted to the petitioner and the writ petition filed by her deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 5. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record. 6. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Stay application (CLMA No.3008 of 2018) stands rejected. 9. 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’s below may be directed to decide her bail application same day. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a lady, it is directed that in case petitioner surrenders and moves bail application, the same shall be decided by the Courts below expeditiously, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law.