Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 221 (UTT)

Sandeep Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-04-26

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “(i). Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 05.04.2018 registered as F.I.R. No. 0070 of 2018 U/s 60 (2) of Uttar Pradesh Excise Act at Police Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar as against the petitioner. (ii). Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned F.I.R. dated 5.4.2018 registered as F.I.R. No. 0070 of 2018 U/s 60 (2) of Uttar Pradesh Excise Act at Police Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar.”. 2. Allegation against the petitioner is of making country made liquor and when the police tried to catch him, the petitioner ran away from the spot. 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 the police are unnecessary wants to rope the petitioner in the aforesaid crime only for the reason to save the real culprits. He further submitted that petitioner has nothing to with the instant case. 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. 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. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Stay Application No. 5221 of 2018 also stands dismissed. 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. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Stay Application No. 5221 of 2018 also stands dismissed. 5. 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 & will move his bail application and the Courts concerned may be directed to decide his bail application on the same day. 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, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law.