Anand @ Nanuwa vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1292 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.628 of 2023
Anand @ Nanuwa                                      ....Petitioner

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                  ....Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. M.K. Ray, 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.79 of

2023, dated 17.04.2023, under Section 8/21/27/29 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,

Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, with

related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 17.04.2023, total 16

grams smack was recovered from co-accused Sunil Kumar

Rathore and Raj Shrivastava. 10 grams smack was recovered

from co-accused Sunil Kumar Rathore and 6 grams smack

was recovered from co-accused Raj Shrivastava. It is the case

in the FIR that on interrogation, they revealed that they had

brought smack from the petitioner and others.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner has been named merely on the basis of the

statements of the co-accused; there is no evidence against

him; no case is made out; the FIR is liable to be quashed.

5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the

petitioner is named in the FIR; he is involved in a serious

crime.

6. It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of

offence, generally, no interference is warranted unless there

are compelling circumstances to do so. The principles, which

cover such jurisdiction, have been illustrated by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others

Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

7. It is true that the petitioner is named in the FIR,

but it is also equally true that he is named merely on the

basis of the statements of the co-accused. But, it also does

not command the Court to quash the FIR. The FIR will be

investigated by the Investigating Officer. He would collect the

material. He would examine the credibility of the statements

given by the co-accused, so as to ascertain as to whether the

petitioner, in any manner, is involved in the dealings of smack

or not. And if so, what is the material against him. This

exercise this Court cannot undertake. Therefore, 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.

8. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 09.05.2023 Ravi Bisht