Cal. HC: Cannot Differentiate Between Contractual and Permanent Employees For Maternity Leave  ||  Supreme Court: Entering Into Sale Agreement With Minor is Void and Unenforceable  ||  SC: Information Disclosing Cognizable Offence to Be Recorded as FIR & Not in General Diary  ||  Delhi High Court: Deployment of CISF Personnel Shall be Based on Operational Requirements  ||  All. HC: Returning Unpaid Check With Endorsement of Account Closed Amounts to Dishnonor of Cheque  ||  Karnataka HC: Courts Should Ensure That Legal Procedures Are Not Abused in Order to Reduce Burden  ||  Utt. HC: Joining in Service Cannot Be Denied to Woman on The Ground of Her Pregnancy  ||  Kar. HC: Can’t Stretch Protection u/a 21 to Those Posing Threat to Nation’s Sovereignty & Integrity  ||  Delhi High Court: Can’t Stop Student From Entering Exam Hall Once Admit Card Issued  ||  Supreme Court Asks Medical Colleges Either to Pay Stipend or Not Have Internship    

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



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


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved