AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.Â
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. The Miscellaneous Application (I.A. No. 3047 of 2018) made
therefor, stands disposed of.Â
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report dated 08.06.2017 registered as Case Crime
No. 157 of 2017, under Section 379, 420, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 66(1) (2) of I.T. Act, Police Station Nehru Colony, District Dehradun.
(ii) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 not to arrest and not to harass the Petitioner in Case Crime
No. 157 of 2017 under Section 379, 420, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 66(1) (2) of I.T. Act, Police Station Nehru Colony, District Dehradunâ€. Â
As per prosecution story, complainant lodged a first information report alleging therein that on 7.06.2017, it was found that Rs. 38,000/- cash was
withdrawn from the ATM Machine of the branch of complainant fraudulently and on inquiry by the I.T. Cell of the Bank it was found through CCTV
footage of the ATM that two persons were seen entering inside the ATM who committed this offence. Â
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant crime. He submitted that the
petitioner has been implicated on the basis of the alleged statement of co-accused, namely, Arpit Kumar Agnihotri recorded in police custody He
further submitted that there is no evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the present case.   Â
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Contents of F.I.R. prima
facie disclose commission of offence. In my opinion, it is not a fit case where the Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and thereafter to file either the charge sheet or final report in the matter. 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. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Stay Application No.4400 of
2018 also stands dismissed.Â
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that in case offence is made out against the petitioner, in that event, the petitioner will surrender
before the Courts concerned & will move his bail application and the Courts concerned may be directed to decide his bail application on the same day.
Considering this submission of the learned counsel for petitioner, it is provided that if the petitioner surrenders before the Courts concerned and seeks
bail; his bail application shall be heard and decided by the Courts concerned expeditiously, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law.
 Â