Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 140 (UTT)

Abhijeet Sinha v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-03-28

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT : 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 in the impugned F.I.R. dated 21.03.2018 (Annexure No. 1) in the F.I.R. No. 227 of 2018, under section 406, 420, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar. II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS COMMANDING the respondent No. 2 not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of F.I.R. No. 227 of 2018, under section 406, 420, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar.” 2. Allegation against the petitioners is that, on the pretext of providing a government job to the respondent no. 3, they took money from the respondent no.3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners in the impugned F.I.R. are totally false and, therefore, protection should be granted to the petitioners. He also submitted that direction may also be issued to the concerned Investigating Officer to comply the provision of Section 41A Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued in the Arnesh Kumar’s case may be followed by the Investigating Officer. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submitted that allegation made against the petitioners is serious in nature. Therefore, interim relief should not be granted to the petitioners and the writ petition filed by them deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. He also submitted that in case some credible evidence is found against the petitioners, in that event, before taking further action, the Investigating Officer will comply the provision of Section 41A Cr.P.C. and will give notice to the petitioners. 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. 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. 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.3704 of 2018) stands rejected.