Karan Alias Karan Yadav vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 240 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

       Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 234 of 2022


Karan Alias Karan Yadav                            ...Applicant

                                 Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others                   ...Respondent


Present:-
             Mr. Shailabh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A. for the State.

                                  JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Challenge in this petition is made to the FIR No.

55 of 2022, under Sections. 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and

506, Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. According to the FIR, on 03.02.2022, the

petitioner and co-accused at about 8:00 PM assaulted the

informant and others. They were fired at also. While

leaving, the petitioners and others threatened the

informant and others to their lives. According to the FIR,

Rajkumari and Bhanu have sustained injuries in the

incident.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties through

video conferencing.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that it is a false FIR. The petitioner did not commit

any offence. Injured Bhanu did not support the

prosecution case. He has filed an affidavit before this

Court. The injuries are lacerations on his forehead alone.

Therefore, intervention is warranted.

5. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. In case, FIR discloses commission

of offences, this Court restrains to intervene in the matter

unless there are exceptional circumstances. In the

instant case, FIR categorically states as to what had

happened on the date of incident. How injuries were

caused? It is for the Investigating Officer ("IO") to

ascertain the truthfulness of the FIR

6. It is strange that the petitioner has filed

affidavit of injured Bhanu. If such affidavits are taken into

consideration at this stage, the Court would be

conducting a kind of parallel investigation in the matter,

which is not under the scheme of law. If the injured

Bhanu did not sustain any injury, he is always free to tell

about it to the IO. The IO would definitely contact him

because he has been named as an injured. The FIR

categorically discloses commission of the offence. There is

no reason to make any interference and the petition

deserves to be dismissed.

7. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

8. Once the order is dictated, learned counsel for

the petitioner seeks liberty to move an anticipatory bail

application. The petitioner is always free to approach the

court concerned for seeking anticipatory bail. For that

purpose, liberty from this Court is not at all required.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) Vacation Judge 09.02.2022 Jitendra