Tauseef Islam Siddiqui vs State of Uttarakhand & others.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 19.08.2015, registered as Case Crime No.189 of 2015, under Sections 406 & 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun.

Allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.3 (complainant) is that petitioner is the Director of the company named as M/s Fair View Trades Limited. According to the F.I.R., petitioner was persuaded to invest money in the shares through this company and assurance was given to him that he will gain profit of 1% and his whole money is safe and will be refunded to him alongwith profit after one year. On the said assurance, the respondent no. 3 invested a sum of ` 11,00,000/- in the shares through the petitioner''s company. After a lapse of one year, when complainant went to the office of said company, the petitioner denied to return the said money on one pretext or another. It is also stated that, thereafter, complainant several times went to the office of the petitioner asking the petitioner to return the said money; but, the petitioner is not returning the said sum to the complainant; rather, threatening the complainant of dire consequences.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. She submitted that allegations made in the F.I.R. are purely of civil nature and arises from the contract between the parties. She submitted that the risk factor was already informed to the complainant and he had duly signed the consent letter, as such, he was aware that the profit and loss in the said investment are at his risk. She submitted that, due to loss in business, the investment of the complainant could not be converted into profits. She submitted that, in such circumstances, interim protection should be granted to the petitioner.

Learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submitted that allegation made against the petitioner is 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.

I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record.

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.

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of F.I.R. 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, 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.

Stay application (CLMA No.10411 of 2017) stands rejected.