P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved