Uttarakhand High Court
Jag Jeevan Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 July, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No.912 of 2023
Jag Jeevan Ram ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief
Holder for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.401 of
2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 395, 427, 504, 506
IPC, 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, on 11.06.2023, at 11:00
PM, the deceased Pankaj, in an inebriated condition, was
driving motorcycle. He hit with a tractor trolley. He was taken
to hospital, but on the way, he died. On 12.06.2023, the
petitioner along with many other persons, armed with sharp
edged weapons and country made pistol entered into the
house of the informant. They damaged the door and other
articles in the house, a motorcycle was also damaged, did
marpeet and abused the family members of the informant.
They also opened firing and looted various articles. The FIR is
quite in detail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit
that the petitioner was assisting the police officers; he had
taken some of the injured to hospital. That is why, the case of
the petitioner has been considered in another FIR No. 393 of
2023, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, and
this Court in WPCRL No.893 of 2023, has given protection to
the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner has no
role; he has been falsely implicated.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the
FIR is named. It is stated that the tractor trolley belongs to
one of the relatives of the informant, therefore, the informant
and his family members were attacked and the articles were
damaged.
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 was
not present at the time of the incident. In fact, learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that the time of
incident is 6:00 PM, and at that time, the petitioner was in
hospital, which is evident from the CCTV footages.
8. It is true that in WPCRL No.893 of 2023, this
Court has granted protection to the petitioner, but the facts
were quite distinct in that case. That is a case of
demonstration alone. In the instant case, the petitioner along
with the co-accused, entered into the house of the informant,
damaged the property. They were armed with sharp edged
weapons, saria, country made pistols; they opened fire; pelted
stones; damaged various household articles of the informant,
due to which the informant and others sustained injuries as
well. The offences, as disclosed in the FIR, are quite serious. A
mob, according to the FIR, entered into the house of the
informant, merely because the tractor trolley, by which the
accident took place and in which deceased Pankaj had died,
belongs to the relatives of the informant. What is the
truthfulness and credibility of the FIR, it may not be
examined in this writ petition. It would fall for scrutiny during
investigation or trial, as the case may be. The plea of alibi,
which the petitioner is raising, may not be examined. This
Court may not conduct a mini trial at this stage.
9. 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.
10. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
04.07.2023
Ravi Bisht
