Uttarakhand High Court
Yogesh Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 3 July, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No.917 of 2023
Yogesh Kumar ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Sandeep Kothari and Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocates 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.394 of
2023, dated 12.06.2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307,
332, 333, 353, 427, 436, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 7 of the
Criminal Law Act, 1934, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee,
District- Haridwar, with related reliefs.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, the deceased Pankaj died
in a tractor trolley accident. His family members were
adamant to make demonstrations. They were made to
understand, but the FIR reveals that the petitioner along with
co-accused, armed with latthi, danda, country made pistol
and sharp edged weapons proceeded towards the highway.
When the police stopped them to do so, the petitioner and the
co-accused started firing at police. They pelted stones. One
co-accused Ranveer Singh was instigating the crowd to do so.
One of the co-accused Ranveer was firing with country made
pistol, due to which many police personnel sustained injuries
including the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that it is a false case; the deceased Pankaj had died in a
accident caused by a Tractor Trolley; the police was not even
lodging an FIR for rash and negligent driving; they were
pressuring the deceased family to settle the dispute after
taking some money; it is the police, who entered into the
village and attacked the innocent villagers and caused them
harm.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the
FIR is named; there are specific allegations; two police
personnel have sustained very serious injuries; they were
hospitalised.
6. 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. The
jurisdiction is to be exercised keeping in view the various
guidelines as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in umpteen cases. In the case of State of Haryana and
Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines and
demonstrated category of cases in which such indulgence
could be made. In Para 102, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as hereunder:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we
give the following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise,
clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible
guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute
a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis
of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.
7. What is being argued is that the FIR is false; it is
the case of police atrocities.
8. The FIR in the instant case categorically reveals
as to what was done by the petitioner and co-accused. The
allegations are of firing at police, pelting stones while armed
with deadly weapons. The FIR definitely discloses commission
of offences. What is the truthfulness and credibility of the
contents of the FIR, it would fall for scrutiny during
investigation or trial, as the case may be. But, as stated, since
the FIR discloses commission of serious offences, there is no
reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition
deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
9. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
03.07.2023
Ravi Bisht
