Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 245 (UTT)

Mohammad Shahnawaz v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-05-03

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT : This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief’s: “(i) To summon the complete record pertaining to the case. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned FIR No.20 of 2018, under Section 406, 420, 504, 506 of IPC at P.S. Jhabreda, District Haridwar (contained Annexure No.1 to this writ petition).” 2. On 29.01.2018, respondent no.3 lodged an FIR alleging therein that the petitioner and one Kasim duped him for Rs.1,50,000/- and took the money, passport & medical certificate, on the pretext of getting his visa for Saudi Arabia and sending him there for job. When respondent no.3 came to know that he was cheated by the petitioner and one Kasim, he talked to them, but they hurled abuses on him and threatened him with dire consequences. 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. Stay application (CLMA No.5485 of 2018) stands rejected. 9. 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. In my view, every bail application should be considered and decided by the learned Court below without any unreasonable delay; but, needless to say that it should be decided strictly in accordance with law. 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, in accordance with law.