Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 126 (UTT)

Jagrati Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-03-21

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT : V.K. BIST, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “(i). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report 01-03-2018 bearing Case crime No. 22 of 2018 for the offence punishable under section 326, 354-A, 504 & 506 of IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with impugned first information report 01-03-2018 bearing Case crime No. 22 of 2018 for the offence punishable under section 326, 354-A, 504 & 506 of IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition).” 2. On 01.03.2018, an F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent no. 3, alleging therein that, his son was studying in class 4th in Geeta Bal Vidhya Mandir Kashipur. On 23.02.2018, the Principal and petitioner committed Maarpeet with the son of the respondent no. 3. It is stated in the F.I.R. that the petitioner hit the eye of the son of the petitioner by a pen, due to which he was unable to see properly. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that when complainant and his wife asked the school administration about the incident, then the school administration admitted the mistake. The complainant took his son to Kashipur for treatment, where doctor informed him that vision of eye has gone. 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant crime. He submitted that the petitioner is 53 years old woman and is suffering from various old aged diseases. He further submitted that there is no material and reliable evidence against the petitioner and protection should be granted to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submitted that as per the statement of the boy recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., specific allegation has been made against the petitioner and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Contents of F.I.R. prima facie disclose commission of offence. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Contents of F.I.R. prima facie disclose commission of offence. In my opinion, it is not a fit case where the Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and thereafter to file either the charge sheet or final report in the matter. 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. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. [Stay Application No. 3234 of 2018 also stands dismissed]. 7. 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 & will move the bail application and the Magistrate concerned may be directed to decide her bail application same day. Considering this submission of the learned counsel for petitioner and considering the fact that petitioner is a lady, it is provided that if the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned and seeks bail; her bail application shall be heard and decided expeditiously, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law.