Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 179 (UTT)

Khalil Ahmed v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-04-06

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the first information report dated 28.03.2018 lodged by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioner registered as F.I.R. No. 47 of 2018, under Sections 3, 5, 11(1) of Protection of Cow Progeny Act, P.S. Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 not to harass and arrest the petitioner in connection with the first information report dated 28.03.2018 lodged by respondent no. 3 against the petitioner registered as FIR No. 47 of 2018, under Sections 3, 5, 11(1) of Protection of Cow Progeny Act P.S. Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar.” 2. First information report was lodged by respondent no. 3, S.I. Kailash Singh Dev with the allegation that on 28.03.2018, he was on patrolling duty alongwith his companions. The informant gave information that some persons were involved in cutting and selling the meat of cow. On the basis of information, the police raided the place. They found that three persons including the petitioner were involved in cutting the meat. The police team tried to catch them but two persons ran away and two were caught. It is stated in the FIR that the petitioner was one of them, who ran away. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case. He submits that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and has no criminal history. He further submits that the FIR lodged by respondent no. 3, is fabricated due to private and personal grudge and petitioner deserves interim protection. 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. 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. The writ petition is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be permitted to surrender and courts below be directed to decide his bail application same day. It is provided that if petitioner surrenders before the court concerned and moves bail application, his bail application shall be considered by the courts below expeditiously, preferably same day.