Reshma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3098 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.1413 of 2023
Reshma                                                 ....Petitioner

                                 Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Another                     ....Respondents

Present:-
              Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
              Mr. M.A. Khan, A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuly, Brief Holder
              for the State.


                              JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.486 of

2023, under Sections 8/21/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Kashipur,

District Udham Singh Nagar, with related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 22.09.2023, one Sultan

Khan was apprehended by the police and 1.024 Kg smack

was recovered from him. The co-accused, Sultan Khan

revealed it to the police that he purchased the smack from the

petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that, in fact, co-accused, Sultan Khan, has been falsely

implicated.

5. 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.

6. The FIR reveals that huge quantity of smack was

allegedly recovered from the co-accused, Sultan Khan. It also

records that co-accused, Sultan Khan, revealed it to the police

that he would purchase smack from the petitioner.

7. It is true that the petitioner has been named

merely on the basis of the statement given by co-acused,

Sultan Khan. It is also true that it is a weak kind of evidence.

But then, there are limitations while considering a writ

petition, challenging the First Information Report.

8. The First Information Report is a base averment

on which investigation takes place. The contents of the FIR,

per se, may not be either accepted or rejected. They would

find scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the case may be.

Mere mention of the name of the petitioner by the co-accused,

Sultan Khan, per se, does not hold her guilty. The

Investigating Officer would investigate the matter. In fact, he

would investigate the matter qua the co-accused, Sultan

Khan, also, and if implication is found, the Investigating

Officer may proceed further to assess as to whether the arrest

is necessary or not. There are umpteen guidelines by the

Higher Courts and statutory provisions on that aspect. The

statement of co-accused, Sultan Khan, may be verified with

other attending circumstances, in terms of bank account, call

details, meetings, etc. These all scrutiny may not be done in

this writ petition.

9. The FIR reveals that it is the co-accused, from

whose possession huge quantity of smack was recovered, and

he named the petitioner as the person from whom he

purchased the smack. As stated, it would find scrutiny during

investigation or the trial, as the case may be. 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.

10. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 12.10.2023 Ravi Bisht