Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 172 (UTT)

Virendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-04-05

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quash the impugned F.I.R. dated 16.02.2018 registered as case crime no. 0059 of 2018, Under Section 328, 341, 376, 385 and 506 of I.P.C. and P.S. Gangnahar, District Haridwar. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 and 3 not to harass and arrest the petitioner in view of the impugned F.I.R. till the collection of any credible evidence against the petitioner till the submitting the report U/s. 173 of Cr.P.C.” 2. On 16.02.2018, complainant lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner, alleging therein, that she knew the petitioner since 2016, as he used to invariably visit to the house of the complainant. In the F.I.R. it is stated that the applicant raped her by enticing and intoxicating something in her food. Thereafter the petitioner issued threats to her of vulgar C.D. of the incident and demanded money from the complainant. In the F.I.R. it is also stated that on the basis of the aforesaid C.D. petitioner raped the applicant many a times. 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, in fact, the sister of respondent no. 4, namely, Smt. Soniya and brother-in-law of respondent no. 4 committed maarpeet with the mother of the petitioner, for which complaint was made to the S.S.P. Haridwar and due to this reason petitioner has been implicated in the present case falsely. He further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner of rape, money transaction and videography made in the F.I.R. are incorrect. 4. 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. 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. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Stay Application No. 4015 of 2018 also stands dismissed. 6. 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 Courts concerned and will move the bail application and the Courts concerned may be directed to decide his bail application expeditiously. Considering this submission of the learned counsel for petitioner, it is provided that if the petitioner surrenders before the Courts concerned and seeks bail; his bail application shall be heard and decided by the Courts concerned expeditiously but strictly in accordance with law.