Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 248 (UTT)

Gurcharan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-05-07

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT : This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief’s: “(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the original record and pleased to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 15.03.2018 registered in F.I.R. No. 0064/2018 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 & 506 I.P.C. Police Station Jaspur, Tehsil- Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar lodged by the respondent no. 3. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing and commanding, the respondent no. 2 as well as the concerned I.O. that they shall follow and comply the directions given by Hon’ble Apex Court through its latest judgment in the case of “Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar” during investigation in the present matter. (iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing and commanding, the respondent no. 2 as well as the concerned I.O. that they shall not arrest the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned F.I.R. dated 15.03.2018.” 2. Allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.3 (complainant) is that the petitioner, along with other co-accused, opened a fake account of his Jeth, who died on 26.09.2013, and kept her signed cheque book as well as pass book with him and withdrew a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and also transferred huge sum in his account from the said account and threatened her of 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 F.I.R. is delayed one, inasmuch as, the alleged transaction took place in the year 2015; whereas, the impugned F.I.R. has been registered in the year 2018. He submitted that, in fact, loan was taken by husband of the respondent no. 3 and the same was being returned by the complainant by way of transferring the money from her account to petitioner’s account and, as such, no fraud has been committed by the petitioner. He submitted that, in any case, petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submitted that allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature. He submitted that, in any case, petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar. 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. He submitted that credible evidence has been found against the petitioner. He referred to paragraph nos. 6, 7 & 8 of the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Investigating Officer, which read as follows: “6. That in the instant case the FIR was lodged on 15.03.2018 by Santosh Devi and accordingly statements of Santosh Devi recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she has specifically stated that the petitioner has embezzled his 5 lac rupees by playing fraud which were given to her by Max Life Insurance Company after the death of her husband. 7. That from investigation it was revealed that amount of 7.22 lac were transferred in the account of Smt. Santosh Devi (informant) (account no. 33524552099) on 08.01.2015 by the insurance company after the death of her husband and later on amount of 5 lac rupees were transferred in the account of petitioner (account no.30395353350) on 10.01.2015 and subsequently the petitioner had transferred Rs. 3 lac in the account of wife of co-accused Palvinder Singh @ Bunty namely Gurjeet Kaur and the rest of the amount i.e. 2 lac rupees were transferred to her relative’s (Bacchan Kaur) account. 8. That it is respectfully submitted that till date there is credible evidence against the petitioner and co-accused Palvinder Singh and Satpal Singh and Satpal Singh had already been arrested and sent to jail while both the petitioner and Palvinder Singh @ Bunty are absconding and their custodial interrogation is necessary for investigation of the case as all the relevant papers are still in the possession of petitioner being main accused.” 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. 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. 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.3258 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. 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. 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 expeditiously, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law.