Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 393 (UTT)

Avinash Sharma v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-09

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 423 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 386, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. 3. According to FIR, on 22nd September, 2020 at 9:00 P.M., the informant was given a telephone call by the petitioner and demanded 10 lakh rupees or else to face dire consequences. On the same day, at 10:00 in the late evening, when the informant was in his house, the petitioner along with other co-accused arrived in his house in five vehicles. They were armed with a country-made pistol, riffle and guns. They abused the informant, entered in the house, the petitioner kicked the informant and other co-accused also assaulted, abused and threatened him. These details are given in the FIR. The FIR has been lodged by respondent no. 3, Ajay Dabas on 23rd September, 2020. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the informants are not unknown to each other. The informant is President of a Sisodia Educational Society, which runs a Mayank Educational College (college). There were financial irregularities in the college, which were noticed and informed to Neeraj Dixit, the Vice President, who happens to be a close friend of the petitioner. On 19th September, 2020, the accountant of the college was beaten. He filed a report,but it was not lodged. 5. Learned senior counsel would argue that the FIR has to be analysed in this background. The petitioner had no motive to visit the house of informant for extortion and before going to make a call. It is argued that, in fact, it is the petitioner who was invited by the informant at his house for settling the things, instead, the FIR has been filed, which according to learned senior counsel is apparently a counterblast to the report which was given by the Accountant of the college, though it was not lodged by the Police. 6. It is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The scope is too wide but much restricted as well. In case, the FIR discloses commission of offences generally interference is not warranted. The credibility, trustworthiness of the contents of the FIR do not fall for scrutiny in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The scope is too wide but much restricted as well. In case, the FIR discloses commission of offences generally interference is not warranted. The credibility, trustworthiness of the contents of the FIR do not fall for scrutiny in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These are the subjects, which fall for consideration of the Investigating Officer or at the trial, as the case may be. Here, in the instant case, it is being argued that the Secretary of the College had given a report on 22nd September, 2020, to the Police. Annexure-3 is a copy of such report. According to it, something had happened on 19th September, 2020 at 3:45 P.M. This Court refrains to make any observation on this FIR because it is not for consideration as such. Yes, it is a background, as argued on behalf of the petitioner. But, again it would also be examined during investigation or at the trial, as the case may be. 7. In the instant case, the FIR categorically discloses commission of offences. Was there any motive? Has the offence been committed? If so, by whom and what offences? As stated, these all and other related matter would be examined by the Investigating Officer, Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in this matter and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. The petition is dismissed.