AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravindra Maithani, J
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.103 of 2023, dated 09.07.2023, under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Kathgodam, District Nainital, with related reliefs.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It appears that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.3, the informant, who is the husband of the petitioner. In a proceedings initiated by the informant, summons were issued to the petitioner. The FIR records that the online tracking report has revealed that the notices had already been served on the petitioner, but when the informant reached in the court, he found that, in fact, the envelope had been received unserved. The FIR records that, subsequently, it was revealed that the tracking report was changed. The summons had already been taken out from the envelope and it must have been done by the postman and the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence. If any offence has been committed, it has been committed by the postal authority. The petitioner is not a beneficiary of any of such acts.
It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of offence, generally, no interference is warranted unless there are compelling circumstances to do so.
The FIR, in the instant case is quite in detail. It reveals a story of conspiracy, forgery and manipulation in the records. What is its truthfulness, it would fall for scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the case may be. If a notice is not received to a person, the postal authority may return it unserved. But, changing the tracking report and returning that envelope thereafter without the notice in it is a serious offence.
Insofar as the question of beneficiary is concerned, this Court refrains to make any observation, but, if notice is not shown to be served on the party, in such circumstances, cannot it be said that the person, to whom the notice was served, has manipulated or conspired with the postal authority? It would also fall for scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the case may be. The FIR definitely discloses commission of offences. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
The petition is dismissed in limine.