Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 212 (UTT)

MANGERAM v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2018-04-20

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon'ble 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 quash the impugned F.I.R. dated 14.10.2017 lodged by respondent no. 3 on the basis of which Case Crime No. 100/2017, under Section 370(2), 342, 376(2)(i), 506, 323 of I.P.C., 3/4 POCSO Act, 4/5/6 and 7 Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, at P.S. Khanpur, District Haridwar, against the petitioner. ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned F.I.R. dated 14.10.2017 lodged by respondent no. 3 on the basis of which Case Crime No. 100/2017, under Section370(2), 342, 376(2)(i), 506, 323 of I.P.C.,3/4 POCSO Act, 4/5/6 and 7 Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, at P.S. Khanpur, District Haridwar, against the petitioner." 2. Allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.3 (complainant) is that the petitioner alongwith other co accused, on the pretext of getting her work, forcefully kept the victim, namely, Marjeena in a room. It is stated in the F.I.R. that the accused persons, by threatening the victim, compelled her to do prostitution. Furthermore, the petitioner beaten her and also did rape with the victim. 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. 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. 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 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. Stay application (CLMA No.4866 of 2018) stands rejected. 9. 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 same day. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that in case petitioner surrenders and moves bail application, the same shall be decided by the concerned Court very very expeditiously, in accordance with law.