Sushant Mehta vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 535 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.360 of 2023

Sushant Mehta                                         ....Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                    ....Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.

                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.35 of

2023, dated 16.02.2023, under Sections 8, 22(c) and 60 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,

Police Station Bahadrabad, District Haridwar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 15.02.2023, narcotic

substances in commercial quantity was recovered from the

possession of the co-accused. The FIR records that the co-

accused revealed it to the police that it is the petitioner, who

supplied the substances.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner has been named by the co-accused. There

is no other material to substantiate it. It is argued that the

petitioner apprehends his arrest.

5. It is a petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. Generally, if an FIR discloses

commission of any offences, no interference is warranted. In

the instant case, there are serious allegations against the co-

accused. According to the FIR, narcotic substances in

commercial quantity was recovered from the co-accused. They

revealed it to the police that it is the petitioner, who supplied

them that substance. What is its truthfulness? Whether it is

substantial with other evidence, it is a matter to be

investigated by the Investigating Officer. As stated, the FIR

discloses commission of offence.

6. 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.

7. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 28.02.2023 Ravi Bisht