Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 167 (UTT)

RAJNISH CHANDRA JUYAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2018-04-04

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the original record and pleased to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 21-03-2018 (Annexure No.-5) registered in FIR No. 0071/2018 U/s 323, 504 & 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Dalanwal, Dehradun District Dehradun lodged by the respondent no. 3. 2. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing and commanding, the respondent no. 2 as well as the concerned I.O. that they shall follow and comply the directions given by Hon'ble Apex Court through its latest judgment in the case of “Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar. 3. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing and commanding, the respondent no. 2 as well as the concerned I.O. that they shall not arrest the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned F.I.R. dated 21-03-2018." 2. Allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner along with his friends abused and assaulted the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant crime. He submitted that the offences under which F.I.R. has been lodged are minor offences and punishment under these Sections is less than seven years and petitioner's case is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 . He also contended that direction may also be issued to the concerned Investigating Officer to comply the provision of Section 41 Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued in the Arnesh Kumar's case may be followed by the Investigating Officer. 4. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submitted that in case some credible evidence is found against the petitioner, 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 petitioner. 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. 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. 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. 8. In view of the above and in view of the statement of learned A.G.A., no order is being passed. Investigating Officer will investigate the matter. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of.