Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

Mukarram and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. - (High Court of Uttarakhand) (16 Feb 2018)

If FIR, prima facie, discloses commission of an offence, Court does not normally stop the investigation

MANU/UC/0058/2018

Criminal

Present petition has been filed by the Petitioners seeking issuance of writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. registered under Section-3/5/11 of Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act 2007. Further, to Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners till the pendency of present writ petition." On 29th December,2017, police received information from Mukbir that, some persons are indulged in cow slaughtering. On receiving the information, police reached on the spot and recovered 80 Kg. beef, 1 skin and one alive cow and a calf. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that, two persons were arrested from the spot; whereas, the Petitioners were said to have been flew away from the spot. The Petitioners submitted that allegations made against the Petitioners in the impugned F.I.R. are totally false and, therefore, protection should be granted to the Petitioners.

The Apex Court, in the case of State of West Bengal v. Swapna Kumar, 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.

Contents of F.I.R. disclosed the 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.

The petitioners then submitted that, in case offence is made out against the Petitioners, in that event, the Petitioners will surrender before the Court concerned and will move the bail applications and the Court's below may be directed to decide their bail applications same day. In view of submission, it is directed that, in case Petitioners surrender and move bail applications, the same shall be decided by the Courts below expeditiously, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law.

Relevant : State of West Bengal v. Swapna Kumar, MANU/SC/0120/1982 : 1982 (1) SCC 561

Tags : OFFENCE   DISCLOSURE   INVESTIGATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved