The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an F.I.R. involving a rape allegation, holding that the FIR disclosed the commission of an offence and was not a fit case for judicial interference.
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. 437 of 2017
Mobina …..Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents
Mr. D.S. Mehta, 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.
Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. dated 26.01.2017 registered as F.I.R. no.22/2017 u/s 376(d), 342, 506 of IPC and 120-B of IPC (included during investigation), P.S. Pulbhatta District Udham Singh Nagar.
2
through the contents of the F.I.R. Specific allegations have been made against the petitioner in 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 should quash the First Information Report (F.I.R.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India given the allegations in the F.I.R. disclose the commission of an offence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mobina
State of Uttarakhand
V.K. Bist
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
