Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 333 (UTT)

Leela Devi v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-09-04

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of an FIR No. 224 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 304 and 307 IPC, Police Station Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar and also directions that the petitioner may not be arrested pursuant to the FIR. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. 3. According to the FIR, on 01.07.2020 at 04:00 in the evening, when the informant alongwith his wife, sons and labourers were working in the agricultural field, petitioner alongwith her sons and husband reached there and started abusing the informant. They attacked the wife of the informant on her head; the informant was also attacked on the head. The injured were taken to the hospital, where the wife of the informant succumbed to the injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was beaten up by a Santo Devi; petitioner had gone to her field for agricultural purposes; she has no role in the case; she had gone to rescue and has been falsely implicated. The matter is pending investigation and charge-sheet has yet not been submitted in the case. 5. On behalf of the respondent no.3., the informant, learned counsel would submit that there is specific role assigned to the petitioner in the FIR. It is she, who made the wife of the informant fell on the field and thereafter, the wife of the informant was attacked brutally; all the other named accused are in custody and there is no reason to make any interference. 6. On behalf of the State, learned counsel would argue that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences and no interference is warranted. 7. It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences, interference is not generally warranted. The factual aspects cannot be looked into in this writ petition. What is argued on behalf of the petitioner at least proves that the petitioner was present at the place of incident. Now, whether she had gone for rescue as is argued on behalf of her or she, in fact, made the wife of the informant fell down so that she may be beaten as stated in the FIR are matters, which fall for consideration for the Investigating Officer. Now, whether she had gone for rescue as is argued on behalf of her or she, in fact, made the wife of the informant fell down so that she may be beaten as stated in the FIR are matters, which fall for consideration for the Investigating Officer. Therefore, no interference is warranted and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. With the above observation, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.