Dismissed

Rajbeer v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Jul 2019WPCRL/99/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under UP Gangster Act, holding that prima facie disclosure of offence precludes writ jurisdiction. Investigation was allowed to proceed, and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Special Judge.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR dismissed; Petitioner directed to appear before Special Judge by 15.07.2019.

Rajbeer Vs State of Uttarakhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

WPCRL No. 99 of 2019 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶2

Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶3

Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, Assistant Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶5

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:

¶6

“I. a writ, order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 963 of 2018 under section 2(b)(i), 2(b)(xi), 3(1), of U P Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act 1986 P.S. Kotwali Haridwar District Haridwar (Contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition).

¶7

II. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 & 2 not to harass the Petitioner in view of the impugned F.I.R. till the collection of any credible evidence against the Petitioner and till the filing of the charge sheet.”

¶8

I have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Contents of F.I.R. prima facie disclose commission of offence. In my opinion, 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 final report in the matter. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of West Bengal. Vs. Swapna Kumar, 1982 (1) SCC 561, 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. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶9

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Special Judge concerned on or before 15.07.2019. It is made clear that as soon as the petitioner appears before the Special Judge concerned and moves bail application(s), the same shall be considered as far as possible on the same day itself on its merit. Interim order dated 11.01.2019 stands vacated.

¶10

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) Navin 01.07.2019

Rajbeer v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajbeer v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gulishta Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Manjula Barnwal and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Smt. Manjula Barnwal and Another Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Savita Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vikas Bahuguna Vs Radhika Jha

Capt. Alok Shekhar Tiwari Vs Pankaj Gangwar