Rishipal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 April, 2018

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Rishipal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 April, 2018

Bench: V.K. Bist

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

          Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 541 of 2018

Rishipal                                                         .....Petitioner
                       Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others                                 ....Respondents
Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Virk, A.G.A. with Mr. Balvinder Singh, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

                                                                 Dated: 04.04.2018
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R.

dated 27.03.2018, being case crime no. 189 of 2018, U/s 379, 411, 120-B of I.P.C. & 4/21 MMDR Act lodged at P.S. Pathri, District Haridwar against the petitioner (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/ directing the respondent nos. 1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with the impugned F.I.R. dated 27-03-2018, being case crime no. 189 of 2018, U/s 379, 411, 120-B of I.P.C. & 4/21 MMDR Act lodged at P.S. Pathri, District Haridwar against the petitioner."

2. On 27.03.2018, respondent no. 3 lodged an F.I.R. alleging therein that when he was on patrolling with other police personnel, he got information about illegal mining at Saisa Ghat in front of Maharaja Stone Crusher. On the said information, the police personnel reached at the spot and found that some tractors were digging illegal R.B.M. whereupon the tractors were intercepted and drivers were arrested on the spot. It is stated in the F.I.R. that while interrogation, the arrested drivers told that they did the illegal mining on the instructions of the owner of tractors and owner of Maharaja Stone Crusher.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant crime and the petitioner is implicated in the present case only on the basis of statement given by the driver of the tractor. He further submitted that in respect of illegal mining, there is a specific provision under Section 4/20 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the said provision could be invoked against the petitioner. He submitted that the offences under which F.I.R. has been lodged are minor offences and punishment under these Sections is less than seven years and petitioner's case is covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC

273. He also contended that direction may also be issued to the concerned Investigating Officer to comply the provision of Section 41 Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued in the Arnesh Kumar's case may be followed by the Investigating Officer.

4. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submitted that in case some credible evidence is found against the petitioner, in that event, before taking further action, the Investigating Officer will comply the provision of Section 41A Cr.P.C. and will give notice to the petitioners.

5. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of West Bengal. Vs. Swapna Kumar, 1982 (1) SCC 561, has held that if an offence is disclosed, Court will not normally interfere with the investigation into the case, and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If the FIR, prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence, the Court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences.

7. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of F.I.R. Contents of F.I.R. disclose offence and it is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the case and, thereafter, either to file charge sheet or final report in the matter.

8. In view of the above and in view of the statement of learned A.G.A., no order is being passed. Investigating Officer will investigate the matter.

9. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(V.K. Bist, J.) 04.04.2018 Navin

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court