Uttarakhand High Court
Babli vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 20 September, 2022
Author: Sanjaya Kumar Mishra
Bench: Sanjaya Kumar Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1775 of 2022
Babli ..................Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Uttarakhand & Others ..............Respondents
Present: Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Date of Hearing and Order: 20.09.2022
Sri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has passed the following order:-
1. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who claims to be a candidate for Gram Pradhan of Village Panchayat, Phoolgargh, P.S. Pathri, District - Haridwar in the ensuing election, has prayed for quashing the F.I.R. No. 0497 of 2022 dated 10.09.2022 for punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as "the Penal Code" for brevity) and Section 62 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand.2
2. The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner with the help of her husband and brother-in-law got some spurious liquor and gave it to the political workers for consuming, who took part in the election rally of the petitioner. In the process, seven persons have succumbed to death allegedly due to consuming the poisonous illicit distilled liquor. At present, the husband of the petitioner has been arrested along with his brother and they have prepared country liquor illegally and distributed among the followers of the petitioner for holding the rally.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner does not have any criminal record, in the sense that no criminal case was initiated against her and prior to this, she has earlier also contested the Panchayat election. He would further submit that the petitioner's husband is a quack and that no illegal activity has been initiated against the petitioner.
4. In the case of "M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2021) SCC Online SC 315", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once an FIR has been filed for a cognizable offence, it is the duty as well as the obligation/responsibility of the 3 Investigating Agency to investigate the case freely, independently and effectively. An order of quashing the F.I.R. against the petitioner would definitely hamper the investigation of the case.
5. In a case, where seven persons have lost their lives allegedly consuming the illicit liquor, the Court should be very careful in interfering with the investigation of the case, so, this Court is of the opinion that since the name of the petitioner has been revealed by the petitioner's husband before the Investigating Officer, it shall be proper on the part of the Investigating Officer to hold proper investigation to the case including the custodial interrogation of the petitioner.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the firm opinion that not even a case of issuance of notice, for quashing of F.I.R., is made out by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the writ petition, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) 20.09.2022 (Grant urgent certified copy of this order, as per Rules) A/-