Shanhanwaz vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2250 UK

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

       Writ Petition Criminal No. 1159 of 2023
Shanhanwaz                                 .............Petitioner

                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ...........Respondents
Present:-
            Mr. Rajneesh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe and
            Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Brief Holders for the
            State/respondent nos.1 and 2.



                         JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the

FIR No.291 of 2023, dated 22.07.2023, under Sections

147, 148, 149, 307, 506 IPC, Police Station Pathari,

District Haridwar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 21.07.2023, there was

a meeting in the village. In the meeting, co-accused Ikrar

started abusing. There were members present in the

meeting. Subsequently, it is the petitioner and other co-

accused, who fired at the respondent no.3, Sajid Ali ("the

informant"). The informant somehow escape the fire, but

the bullet hits a cow. According to the FIR, the petitioner

and the co-accused also threatened the informant to life.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that Ikrar and informant had contested the village

election, only because of that the FIR has been lodged

falsely. The petitioner happens to be the nephew of Ikrar.

He has been falsely implicated. He would also argue on

the probability as to how is it possible that many persons

fired at the informant, but it could not hit him instead hit

a cow?

5. This is writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. If FIR discloses commission of

offences, generally no interference is warranted unless

there are compelling circumstances to do so.

6. Why the gun-shot could not hit 'A' and it hit

'B'? Why and under what circumstances, the informant

did escape the gun-shot? These and many more questions

will fall for scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the

case may be. It is the case of the petitioner himself that

there is an enmity between the co-accused Ikrar and the

informant. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that he

happens to be the nephew of the co-accused Ikrar.

Enmity is definitely, a double edged sword. On the one

hand, it may be a cause for false implication, but at the

same time, on the other hand, it may be a reason to cause

the offence. What is the truthfulness of this FIR will fall

for scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the case may

be. This Court cannot appreciate the arguments as has

been raised. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason

to make any interference in this petition. Accordingly, the

petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of

admission itself.

7. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 16.08.2023 Sanjay