VED PAL RANA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

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

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records and quashing the First Information Report dated 12.05.2018

(Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition), lodged by the respondent no. 3, on the basis of which, a case crime no. 175 of 2018 under Sections 323, 343,

346 and 347 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar.â€​

Allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent no.3 (complainant) is that, on 07.05.2018, the petitioner took the complainant

and her granddaughter Nakshu on his vehicle to an unknown place. He detained them there and, in order to release Nakshu, the petitioner

demanded `50,000/- and also assaulted them.  Â

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner in the impugned F.I.R. are totally false and, therefore,

protection should be granted to the petitioner. He also submitted that direction may also be issued to the concerned Investigating Officer to comply

the provision of Section 41 Cr.P.C. and the guidelines issued in the Arnesh Kumar’s case may be followed by the Investigating Officer.Â

Learned Assistant Government Advocate 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. Learned Assistant Government Advocate submitted that in case some credible evidence is found against the petitioner, in that event,

before taking further action, the Investigating Officer will comply the provision of Section 41 Cr.P.C. and will give notice to the petitioner.Â

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

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. But, statement given by Deputy Advocate General is recorded and petition is closed. Â

Stay application (CLMA No.6713 of 2018) stands rejected.