Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 163 (UTT)

Yatendra Kumar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-04-04

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned FIR dated 21.03.2018 (Annexure No. 1) bearing FIR No. 42 of 2018 under Section 308 and 506 IPC, Police Station Mukhani, Haldwani, District Nainital. (ii) Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 not to take coercive measures against the petitioners.” 2. Respondent no. 3 lodged FIR with the allegation that one week ago a phone call of some unknown property dealer came to the complainant that some cheap land is being available for sale in Vasudevpuram, Kusumkhera. Accordingly, the complainant agreed to see the land. On 16.03.2018 at about 11:00 A.M. in the morning again a phone call from same unknown property dealer received by the complainant to inspect the land and the documents related to the land. The complainant agreed to inspect the land, he gave time of about 01:00 p.m. in the noon. It is stated that at about 01:00 p.m. one woman and two men met the complainant. They boarded in his car. In the conversation, they were addressing each other as Heena Rawat, Yatinder and Rajveer. Abruptly, the complainant saw that three other persons were chasing his car. As soon as, he got alert they all started thrashing the complainant with an iron rod. It is stated that the blood started oozing from the head, they snatched the key of the complainant and started intimidating to provide ATM card otherwise the complainant was threatened to be killed. As soon as they reached near the Central Hospital, car was stopped, the complainant got down from the car and started raising alarm for rescue. The accused person ran away threatening the complainant for dire consequences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have falsely been implicated in the instant case. He submits that the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law. He further submits that the petitioners are the students and of tender age, therefore, there is a chance of spoiling of their future if they will be put behind the bar. 4. He submits that the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law. He further submits that the petitioners are the students and of tender age, therefore, there is a chance of spoiling of their future if they will be put behind the bar. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. From the perusal of F.I.R. it is clear that offence is made out. Whether the petitioners are actually involved or not, is a matter of investigation. In my opinion it is not a fit case where the Court should interfere. It is for the Investigating Officer either to file final report or charge sheet in the matter. 7. The writ petition is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners may be permitted to surrender and courts below be directed to decide their bail application same day. It is provided that if petitioners surrender before the court concerned and move bail application, their bail application shall be considered by the courts below expeditiously, preferably same day.