Uttarakhand High Court
Balwant Singh And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 14 September, 2017
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: V.K. Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1463 of 2017
Balwant Singh & another. .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others. ...Respondents
Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.
Dated: 14th September, 2017
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 13.08.2017, registered as F.I.R. No.295 of 2017, under SectionS 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) (x) S.C./S.T. Act, registered at Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar.
2. Allegations made in the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.3 (complainant) are that, on 09.08.2017, when complainant, his wife and daughter were doing the domestic work of their home, petitioner no. 1 came there and started hurling abuses. When complainant tried to stop him, he said that they belong to Scheduled Caste and hurled caste indicating words to them. Moreover, he tried to assault his daughter; but, people from the locality intervened and saved her. It is stated that, while going from the place of incident, petitioner no. 1 hit the complainant by a brick, due to which, he suffered severe injuries. Thereafter, petitioner no. 1 alongwith petitioner no. 2 again came to the house of the complainant and threatened him of dire consequences.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. He submitted that petitioners have not committed any offence and no specific allegations have been made against the petitioners in the F.I.R. He submitted that, in such circumstances, interim protection should be granted to the petitioners.
4. Learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submitted that allegations made against the petitioners are serious in nature. Therefore, interim relief should not be granted to the petitioners and the writ petition filed by them deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. He also submitted that in case some credible evidence is found against the petitioners, in that event, the Investigating Officer will comply the provision of Section 41 Cr.P.C. and will give notices 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 3 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. It is not a fit case, where the High Court should interfere in this criminal writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Stay application (CLMA No.11423 of 2017) stands rejected.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that in case offence is made out against the petitioners, in that event, the petitioners will surrender before the Court concerned and will move the bail applications and the Court concerned may be directed to decide their bail applications same day. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that in case petitioners surrender and move bail applications, the same shall be decided by the Court's below expeditiously, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law.
10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(V.K. Bist, J.) 14.09.2017 Arpan