Mukesh Kumar Sahgal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 1 May, 2018

[Cites 11, Cited by 1]

Uttarakhand High Court

Mukesh Kumar Sahgal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 1 May, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 UTR 304

Bench: V.K. Bist

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

               Writ Petition (Crl.) No.731 of 2018

Mukesh Kumar Sahgal                                         .....Petitioner
                            Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others                              ...Respondents
Mr. M.S. Pal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Lovely Grover, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Virk, A.G.A. along with Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand.


                            Dated: 01st May, 2018

Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 21.4.2018, registered as FIR/Case Crime No.0012 of 2018, under Section 323, 354, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 10, 11, 12, 7, 8, 9 f, 9 1, registered at P.S. Lamgada, District Almora (contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition).

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent nos.1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with FIR/Case Crime No.0012 of 2018, under Section 323, 354, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 10, 11, 12, 7, 8, 9 f, 9 1, registered at P.S. Lamgada, District Almora."

2. On 21.4.2018, the respondent no. 3 lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner alleging therein that, the petitioner who was working in Govt. Primary School Vagania has committed sexual harassment with Nirmala aged about 10 years, student of the Govt. Primary School Vagania. In the FIR, it is also alleged that Mukesh Kumar Sahgal and his colleague Daya Shelakoti threatened Nirmala of dire consequences.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that allegations made against the petitioner in the impugned F.I.R. are totally false and, therefore, protection should be granted to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case.

4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submitted that allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature. Therefore, interim relief should not be granted to the petitioner and the writ petition filed by him deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.

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. From perusal of FIR, I find that 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, 3 where the High Court should interfere in this criminal writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

(V.K. Bist, J.) 01.5.2018 A.Kaur

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court