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.916 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.395 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. The FIR reflects that with regard to the death of
one Pankaj, hundreds of people armed with latthi, danda and
country made pistol, were damaging the houses of the
opposite party. One motorcycle was also set ablaze. They were
pelting stones. Having sensed fear, the shopkeepers closed
their shops. The FIR records that the mob started firing at
police also. They were warned that they should not indulge in
this illegal act. Tear gas, plastic pallets and other deterrents
were used by the police but, according to the FIR, the mod did
not stop and it is the petitioner, who was instigating the mob,
leading it from front. Some of the persons were arrested also
by the police.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that with regard to death of one Pankaj, when the villagers
protested, the petitioner was not present at that time; the
petitioner is a local leader; he was called by the police to make
the crowd understand that they should not indulge in that
activity; the petitioner tried his level best, but failed.
Thereafter, he has been falsely implicated.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the
FIR is named; there are very serious allegations against the
petitioner.
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, in
Para 102, the Hon'ble Supreme Court illustratively gave the
list of circumstances under which interference in this
jurisdiction may be made. It is 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 petitioner is not
involved in the case. He has been falsely implicated. Making
demonstration is one thing and using violence, burning public
properties and properties of other persons, firing at police,
may not be ever considered part of any demonstration. The
FIR reflects serious offences. It categorically states that it is
the petitioner, who was instigating the crowd. What is its
truthfulness, it would fall for scrutiny during investigation or
trial, as the case may be. This Court, in this petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not examine the
truthfulness and credibility of the FIR when there are serious
allegations, like in the instant FIR.
8. The FIR definitely discloses commission of
serious offences. Therefore, 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
