Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 166 (UTT)

PRIYA DEVI @ MALLA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2018-04-04

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quash the impugned F.I.R. No. 11 of 2018 under Section 147,452, 506, 307 of I.P.C., Police Station Tallital, District Nainital (contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 and 2 not to harass and arrest the petitioner in connection with F.I.R. No. 11 of 2018, under Section 147, 452, 506, 307 of I.P.C., Police Station Tallital, District Nainital." 2. Allegation against the petitioners in the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.3 (complainant) is that, on 24.03.2018, petitioners forcefully entered into the house of the complainant, and assaulted them with the intention to kill them. It is stated that anyhow, in order to save her life, the daughter of the complainant ran upstairs; but, the petitioners caught the daughter of the complainant on the fourth floor and throw her on the land. Further, while returning back, they threatened them with dire consequences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that allegations made against the petitioners in the impugned F.I.R. are totally false and, therefore, protection should be granted to the petitioners. She submitted that petitioner no. 1 is only 26 years old and in case interim protection is not granted, her entire career will be ruined. He also submitted that the petitioner no. 3 is a lady and petitioner nos. 5 & 6 are minor. 4. Learned Assistant Government Advocate vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submitted that allegations made against the petitioners are 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. 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 Article226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. Interim relief application (CLMA No.3949 of 2018) stands rejected. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that in case offence is made out against the petitioner nos. 1 to 4, in that event, the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 will surrender before the Court concerned and will move the bail applications and the concerned Court may be directed to decide their bail applications same day. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that in case petitioner nos.1 to 4 surrenders and move bail applications, the same shall be decided by the concerned Court expeditiously, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law. It is also observed that since petitioner nos. 5 & 6 are minor, in case offence is made out against them, provisions of Juvenile Justice Act shall be followed.