Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 376 (UTT)

Mukul Malik v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-06

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 365 of 2020 under Sections 456, 354, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the records. 3. According to the FIR, on 23.07.2020, midnight at about 1:00, the petitioner entered the house of the informant and molested her. When the informant objected to it, she was threatened to life. It is also the case that earlier also, the petitioner has done such activities. There are other averments as well in the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that informant and petitioner are cousin. Their houses are adjacent. A complaint was also given by mother of the petitioner but the informant has leveled allegations under Section 354 IPC also. There is nothing specific against the petitioner in the FIR as to how the molestation was done and the incident is improbable. It is submitted that the petitioner may be protected. 5. It is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of an FIR. In case, FIR discloses commission of offences, generally no interference is warranted. It is true that minute details are not incorporated in the FIR but the FIR states that the petitioner entered into the house of the informant and molested her. Not only this, it is also argued on behalf of the petitioner that a complaint was also lodged by mother of the petitioner. Annexure 2 is that petition. What happened at the time of incident, it is a matter definitely for Investigating Officer to find out. The FIR as stated discloses commission of offences. The credibility and its reliability would be tested during investigation or at the trial, as the case may be. Therefore, no interference, as such, is warranted and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the directions may be issued that bail application of the petitioner may be expedited. This Court has no doubt that as and when bail applications are filed, they are decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. There is no need to pass any specific order on that subject. 7. The petition is dismissed