Uttarakhand High Court
Nikhil Agarwal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 25 July, 2017
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: V.K. Bist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No.1136 of 2017
Nikhil Agarwal ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ...Respondents
Mr P.S. Saun, Advocate with Mr. Nalin Saun, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Bohra, AGA for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the respondent no.3-complainant.
Dated: 25.07.2017 Hon'ble V.K. Bist J.
Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the First Information Report dated 09.07.2017 in Case Crime No.165 of 2017, under sections 386, 323, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C. registered at Police Station Dalanwala District Dehradun. Further prayer has been made commanding the respondent nos.1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioner Case Crime No.165 of 2017 under Sections 386, 323, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C., P.S. Dalanwala District Dehradun till the pendency of present petition.
2. An FIR was registered against the petitioner with the allegation that on 09.07.2017 at about 09:30 p.m. complainant was returning from Hathibarkala New Cantt. Road, 77/3 Rajpur Road to his house, then at Rispana Bridge the petitioner and co-accused Sumit Agarwal and Amit Agarwal forcibly stopped the complainant and started abusing, assaulted him and threatened for dire consequences. It is stated in the FIR that petitioner has 2 illicit relation with the wife of the complainant and the complainant had caught them red handed. It is stated that the complainant has given the recording of conversation between the petitioner and Neha-wife of the complainant, C.D. and Pen Drive to Police. In the said conversation they were talking about their physical relationship and made conspiracy of running away from home by taking jewellery and money.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been made scapegoat in the matter. The allegations of illicit relation are totally false. He submits that complainant and his parents were torturing Neha for want of dowry and petitioner being the cousin of respondent no.3 took side of Neha. He submits that at the time of the incident petitioner was present in the house and story is false one. He submits that petitioner has not met the co-accused Sumit and Amit about one and half year, therefore, question of committing offence does not arise. He also submits that there is no independent witness of the incident and no injury is caused to anyone. He further submits that in such circumstances FIR should be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned AGA submits that from the FIR it is clear that the petitioner has committed crime, in such circumstances F.I.R. should not be quashed.
5. 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 3 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.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Whether the facts mentioned in the F.I.R are correct or not, is a matter of investigation. In my opinion it is not a fit case where the Court should intervene. It is for the Investigating Officer either to file final report or charge sheet in the matter.
7. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, it is provided that if the petitioner surrenders before the court concerned and seeks bail application, his bail application shall be considered expeditiously, preferably same day.
(V.K.Bist, J.) 25.07.2017 Arti