Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 361 (UTT)

SALMAN @ SULEMAN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2018-07-06

LOK PAL SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. Criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the F.I.R in case crime no. 237 of 2018 at Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar initially FIR was lodged under Sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C and during the investigation and relying upon the injury report/medical report offences punishable under Sections 325, 326 of I.P.C were added. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant crime by the complainant/respondent no. 3 as there is a family dispute going on between them. 3. A perusal of the F.I.R would reveal that serious allegations have been made against the petitioners. A perusal of F.I.R, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offences are made out against the petitioner. From a perusal of the medical examination report of injured Mukkarram, who sustained the serious injuries, would further reveal that he sustained the following injuries. (1) LW 1.5 x 0.5 cm on lateral wall of right side nose. 2 (2) LW 2x01 cm on the right eyebrow middle part. (3) Abreaded contusion 1x1 cm on Lateral wall of right side nose. (4) LW 1x 0.5 cm right side face, 1cm below right eye. (5) Traumatic swelling over right orbital Region. (6) Broken Tooth at right lower jaw. 4. The offence punishable under Section 326 of I.P.C entails punishment of life imprisonment. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to quash the F.I.R as; ingredients of cognizable offences of complaint against the petitioners are made out. 6. Present criminal writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. 7. After dismissal of the criminal writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the directions be issued to Court below to decide the bail application of the petitioners on the same day, subject to their surrender. Submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners to issue the directions to the Learned Magistrate to decide the bail application expeditiously is un-sustainable in law. 8. Submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners to issue the directions to the Learned Magistrate to decide the bail application expeditiously is un-sustainable in law. 8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 ; 2017 (1) NCC 222 , has held that when the writ Court declines to interfere with the FIR and not quashes the FIR and proceeds to dismiss the writ petition, thereafter, the writ Court become functus officio and cannot issue the directions to the Learned Magistrate to decide the bail application expeditiously or on the same day. 9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment (supra) has further held in paragraph 24 which is quoted hereunder: “It has come to the notice of the Court of the Hon'ble Apex Court that in certain cases, the High Courts, while dismissing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, are passing orders that if the petitioner-accused surrenders before the trial Magistrate, he shall be admitted to bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and appropriate to be imposed by the Magistrate concerned. Sometimes it is noticed that in a case where Sessions trial is warranted, directions are issued that on surrendering before the trial Judge concerned, the accused shall be enlarged on bail. Such directions would not commend acceptance in light of the ratio in Rashmi Rekha Thatoi, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, etc., for they neither come within the sweep of Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor Section 482 Cr.P.C nor Section 438 Cr. P.C. This Court in Ranjit Singh has observed that the sagacious saying “a stitch in time saves nine" may be an apposite reminder and this Court also painfully so stated. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court has circulated the copy of the judgment (supra) to the Hon'ble Judges of all the High Courts. In view of the findings recorded above and in view of the ration of the judgment (supra), the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby rejected. 11. Registrar General of this Court is hereby directed to circulate the copy of this order to all the Judges, Magistrate Subordinate to this Court to strictly comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (supra).