The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging offences under Sections 354 and 504 IPC, holding it was not a fit case for intervention at this stage.
The writ petition and stay application CLMA No. 3013 of 2017 were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 421 of 2017
Istkaar …..Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents
Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. A.S. Gill, Dy. Advocate General assisted by Mr. Milind Raj, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for respondent no.3
Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. dated 24.03.2017, being case crime no.116 of 2017, u/s 354 and 504 of IPC, lodged by respondent no.3 at P.S. Kotwali Laksar, District Haridwar against the petitioner (Annexure no.3).
2
the F.I.R., which discloses the commission of offence. In the opinion of the Court, it is not a fit case where the Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and thereafter to file either the charge sheet or the final report in the matter.
(V.K. Bist, J.) 06.04.2017
Rajni
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court fits to quash the FIR under Article 226 when the Investigating Officer has not filed charge sheet or final report.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Istkaar
State of Uttarakhand
Respondent nos.1 and 2
Respondent no.3
V.K. Bist
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
