Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 55 (UTT)

Amarjeet Sethi v. State of Uttarakhand

2018-02-17

V.K.BIST

body2018
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief : “(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records and quashing the first information report dt. 11.12.2017 (Annexure No.2 to this writ petition), lodged by the respondent no. 3, on the basis of which, a case crime no. 294 of 2017 under sections 376, 342 and 506 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station, Dalanwala, District Dehradun, so far as it relates to the petitioners.” 2. Allegation against the petitioners in the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.3 (complainant) is that both the petitioners committed rape with her and also threatened her of dire consequences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that just to blackmail the petitioners, the impugned F.I.R. has been registered by the complainant against them. He submitted that allegations made against the petitioners in the impugned F.I.R. are totally false and, therefore, protection should be granted to the petitioners. He submitted that allegation against the petitioner no. 2 is totally false, inasmuch as, it is not possible that a person will come in the night, knock the door and, thereafter, rape the two girls simultaneously. He further submitted that, from the First Information Report itself, it is very much clear that on the instigation of Renu Toora, who is running an N.G.O. in New Delhi, the First Information Report has been lodged by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioners, but later on Renu Toora and her companions were also arrested by the Investigating Officer in the present crime for the offence under Section 370 and 120 (B) I.P.C., which clearly shows that just for the blackmailing the petitioners, the First Information Report has been lodged by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioners in collusion with Renu Toora, which is nothing, but only an abuse of process of law. 4. On last occasion, this Court asked the learned Government Pleader to get instructions in the matter. Today, learned Assistant Government Advocate, on instructions, would submit that when Renu Tura was arrested, Rs.7,00,000/- was recovered from her possession, Rs.2,00,000/-was recovered from the possession of Upendra Sharma and Rs.30,000/- was recovered from the possession of Kamlesh. Learned Government Pleader submitted that as far as allegation of rape is concerned, in her statement the victim has confirmed that she was subjected to rape. Learned Government Pleader submitted that as far as allegation of rape is concerned, in her statement the victim has confirmed that she was subjected to rape. He submitted that allegation made against the petitioners is serious in nature. Therefore, interim relief should not be granted to the petitioners and the writ petition filed by them 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. 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.1439 of 2018) stands rejected. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that in case offence is made out against the petitioners, in that event, the petitioners will surrender before the Court concerned and will move the bail applications and the Sessions Judge may be directed to decide their bail applications same day. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that in case petitioners surrender and move bail applications, the same shall be decided by the Sessions Judge expeditiously, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law.