Bablu And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2466 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.1194 of 2023
Bablu and Another                                       ....Petitioners

                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                      ....Respondents

Present:-
             Mr. Manoj Mohan, Advocate for the petitioners.
             Mr. K.S. Rawal, A.G.A. for the State.


                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioners-Bablu and Monu seek quashing

of FIR No.630 of 2023, dated 04.08.2023, under Sections 147,

148, 149, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Thana Laksar,

District Haridwar, with related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 03.08.2023, at 8:00 in

the evening, the petitioner Bablu threatened the informant,

the respondent no.2, and, thereafter, at 9:00 PM, both the

petitioners, along with other co-accused abused the informant

and threatened him to life and they also opened fire in the air.

The FIR records an incident on 29.06.2023 also against the

petitioner no.1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that, in fact, the informant and others tried to molest

the wife of petitioner no.1 on 03.08.2023. A report was given

to the Senior Superintendent of Police, which has not been

lodged, and falsely, the instant FIR has been lodged. He would

also submit that according to the FIR, at the time of the

incident, the police had been informed and the police had

taken the informant at the police station, but learned counsel

would submit that the FIR was lodged the next day. It falsifies

the FIR.

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

Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of

offence, generally, no interference is warranted unless there

are compelling circumstances to do so.

6. It is true that the FIR has been recorded on

04.08.2023, and it also records that the incident took place

on 03.08.2023, when on a call made by the informant, the

police had reached at the spot and taken the informant to the

police station. Why has it been done? What are the causes of

lodging of delayed FIR? They may be subject for scrutiny

during investigation or trial, as the case may be. At this stage,

learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that the

petitioners were also medically examined on 04.08.2023. Does

it mean that some incident had taken place, of which the

petitioners have a version, whereas, the informant has lodged

the FIR? If it is so, it also falls for deeper scrutiny during

investigation or trial, as the case may be.

7. The FIR in the instant case, discloses

commission of offences. What is its truthfulness or credibility,

it would fall for scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the

case may be. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is

no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition

deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

8. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 24.08.2023 Ravi Bisht