Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 189 (UTT)

Arun Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-04-11

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs : “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records and quashing the first information report dt. 02.01.2018 (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition) lodged by the informant/ respondent no. 3, on the basis of which, a Case Crime No. 01 of 2018, under Section 2/3 of the Gangsters Act, registered at P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, DistrictHaridwar, qua the petitioner.” 2. Allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner along with the one co-accused, for the purpose of gaining the profit, used to change the A.T.M. and withdraw the money of the innocent persons by using forgery. It is also stated in the FIR that, due to this act, they causes financial loss to the people and the people are under grave threat and are unable to give statements against them. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that allegations made against the petitioner in the impugned F.I.R. are totally false and, therefore, protection should be granted to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submitted that allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature. Therefore, interim relief should not be granted to the petitioner and the writ petition filed by him 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. 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. From perusal of FIR, I find that 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. 7. From perusal of FIR, I find that 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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. 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 Court concerned and will move the bail application and the Court concerned may be directed to decide his bail application, expeditiously. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that in case petitioner surrenders and move bail application, the same shall be decided by the Court concerned expeditiously, in accordance with law.