Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 375 (UTT)

Preetam Singh Sandhu v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-06

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioners seek direction that the FIR No. 90 of 2019, Police Station Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Section 306 IPC be properly investigated by some senior officer within a stipulated time. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record. 3. It is a case, which arises out from the FIR lodged by respondent no.4 Rishipal Singh, the informant, on 16.09.2019. According to it, his brother was harassed by the petitioners and he committed suicide. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that day after the lodging of the FIR, the petitioners had requested that the Investigating Officer may be changed because he is working at the behest of a Jasvinder Singh. Reference has been made to Annexures 6 and 7, which are two letters addressed to District Magistrate and SSP, Udham Singh Nagar respectively. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no.4, would submit that petitioners had earlier filed two separate writ petitions for quashing the FIR, which have been rejected and the writ petition filed by petitioner no.1 Preetam Singh was WPCRL No. 1243 of 2019 and writ petition filed by petitioner no.2 Keher Singh was WPCRL No. 1241 of 2019 and both were rejected on 29.07.2019. It is also argued that the arguments which have been advanced on behalf of the petitioners today, had in fact, been raised earlier in their writ petitions by the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the State would also submit that petitioners' petitions for quashing FIR had already been rejected and they were required to surrender, but they did not surrender. 7. Petitioners did not hide anything in fact. In para 4-x, it is stated that petitioner Keher Singh filed WPCRL No. 1241 of 2019, which was rejected on 29.07.2019. 8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in fact, petitioner Preetam Singh had also filed WPCRL No. 1243 of 2019, which was also rejected on 29.07.2019 with the similar order. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that pursuant of the orders passed in earlier writ petitions, they had applied for surrender, but subsequently, withdrew their applications. 10. Perusal of order dated 29.07.2019, which is annexure 10 to the writ petition, passed in WPCRL No. 1241 of 2019, reveals that the Court did not intervene in the matter and dismissed the writ petition. 10. Perusal of order dated 29.07.2019, which is annexure 10 to the writ petition, passed in WPCRL No. 1241 of 2019, reveals that the Court did not intervene in the matter and dismissed the writ petition. Not only this, the Court also directed the petitioners to surrender before the court concerned on or before 06.08.2019 and some other directions were also issued. The court did not direct the petitioners to move an application for surrender and withdraw it subsequently. What the court had directed on 29.07.2019 was that the petitioners should surrender on or before 06.08.2019, which they did not and today they have come up with a prayer that Investigation Officer may be changed. This petition cannot be entertained. The petitioners' earlier petitions for quashing of an FIR were dismissed. Definitely all these arguments were available to the petitioners on that date. It cannot be said that he argued all those points or not, but reference has been made to two complaints, as detailed hereinbefore given to concerned District Magistrate and SSP about bias in investigation. The directions given in the earlier petitions filed by the petitioners have not been complied with. This is successive petition with change of reliefs. Having considered all the aspects of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed at its threshold. 11. The writ petition is dismissed.