Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 368 (UTT)

Pratap v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-06

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 283 of 2020, under Sections 147, 323, 354, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Rishikesh, District Haridwar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. 3. According to FIR, the house of the informant who is respondent no.3 herein and the petitioners are adjacent. A dispute arose on 19th February, 2020 morning at 9-10, with regard to constructions of a wall and according to the FIR the informant was beaten indiscriminately and her family members were also beaten and she was threatened also. She conducted her medical examination. The FIR is quite in detail. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the incident occurred on 19th February, 2020 and FIR was lodged on 10th August, 2020. It is argued that, in fact, on a report of the inquiry was conducted by the Police and it was found that no offence as such was made out. Reference has been made to a report of Circle Officer, Rishikesh, District Dehradun dated 6th July, 2020. 5. It is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The report which is referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is annexed to as annexure-2, also reflects that there is a dispute between the parties and the inquiry officer did not found evidence in support of the complaint with regard to the incident dated 19th February, 2020. This Court is not sure about the nature of the inquiry which was conducted by the Circle Officer, Rishikesh, Dehradun. Today, the fact remains that an FIR has been lodged, in which, the allegation of beating the informant and other family members has been raised and it is also stated that the informant sustained injuries. What is the nature of injuries? What evidence the Investigating Officer (IO) till now collected, cannot be guessed even. The credibility of the FIR would fall even consideration of the IO during investigation. If any investigation has been conducted, by the Circle Officer, Rishikesh, the IO will look into that report also. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the petition. 6. It is argued that the petitioner may be protected from arrest. 7. Arrest is not a mechanical task of an IO. If any investigation has been conducted, by the Circle Officer, Rishikesh, the IO will look into that report also. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the petition. 6. It is argued that the petitioner may be protected from arrest. 7. Arrest is not a mechanical task of an IO. Merely lodging of the FIR does not make it mandatory for the IO to arrest the person named in the FIR. He has to take an independent opinion after having stabilised the complicity of the person named in the FIR, the need to arrest. This Court has no doubt that the IO shall fallow all the provisions and directions on this subject, if such occasion arises. 8. With the above observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.