Ashok And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 486 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
             Criminal Writ Petition No.331 of 2023

Ashok and Another                                           ....Petitioners

                                    Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                          ....Respondents

Present:-
                 Mr. Bhavya Prasad Singh Rautela, Advocate for the
petitioners.
                 Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. for the State.

                                 JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioners seek quashing of the FIR No.40

of 2022, dated 27.10.2022, under Section 420 IPC, Police

Station Rudraprayag District- Rudraprayag.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 17.10.2022, when the

informant had gone at an Automated Teller Machine,

somebody changed the ATM card of the informant and

withdrew Rs. 1,35,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the petitioners are the resident of Haryana. The

police in District Rudraprayag is harassing him and

threatening them to send them in prison.

6. It is a petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. If an FIR discloses commission of

offences, generally, no interference is warranted.

7. In Para 5 of the petition, the petitioners write as

follows:-

"5. That it pertinent to mention here that the

petitioners are the permanent resident of Haryana and

went to Rudraprayag for outing. That in the garb of

investigation the Police is trying to implicate the present

petitioners into the alleged crime, whereas they are

totally innocent. It is pertinent to mention here that the

present petitioners are not named in the FIR in spite of

this, the Police personals humiliate and harass the

petitioners. The petitioners are apprehension of being

arrest by the Police. Since they are being roped-in the

present case without cogent evidence, they are

constrained to knock the doors of this Hon'ble Court."

8. The averments, as made in Para 5 of the writ

petition, makes explicit that the petitioners are suspect. In

the instant case, the FIR discloses commission of an offence.

Whether the applicants have committed the offence or not, it

falls within the domain of investigation. If the petitioners

apprehend their arrest, there are remedies permissible under

law in term of anticipatory bail application. Merely, on the

allegations of the petitioners that they are innocent and are

being called or interrogated by police, the FIR may not be

quashed.

9. Having considered, 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.

10. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 23.02.2023 Ravi Bisht