Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 232 (UTT)

UDAY SINGH @ RAJU v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2018-04-27

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 quashing the impugned Complaint dated 10.03.2018, which was registered as Range Case No.5/Riknada of 2017-18, under Section 26(cha) (Chcha), 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 (Uttaranchal Amendment Act 2001) at Range Nada Rikhnada, Chakrata Dehradun as against the petitioner. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the Complaint dated 10.03.2018, which was registered as Range Case No.5/Riknada of 2017-18, under Section 26(cha) (Chcha), 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 (Uttaranchal Amendment Act 2001) at Range Nada Rikhnada, Chakrata Dehradun as against the petitioner." 2. The facts, relevant to the writ petition, are that, on 10.03.2018, respondent no. 2 received information from Mukbir that stolen logs of Devdar were being kept at Sera Chani. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 alongwith other staff members made search of that place and 88 Nags of Devdar were recovered from the possession of Bagat Ram Sharma. 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 Brief Holder 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. 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.4328 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 Courts below 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 applications, the same shall be decided by the Courts below expeditiously, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law. 10. Urgency application (I.A. No. 3061/2018) is, accordingly, disposed of.