Uttarakhand High Court
Reshma And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 12 October, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No.1412 of 2023
Reshma and Another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another ....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. M.A. Khan, A.G.A. with Mr. Vipul Painuly, Brief Holder
for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioners Reshma and Km. Uzma seek
quashing of FIR No.399 of 2023, under Sections 8/21 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 08.08.2023, one
Amruddin Ansari was apprehended by the police and 502.20
grams smack was recovered from him. The co-accused,
Amruddin Ansari revealed it to the police that he purchased
the smack from the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that, in fact, co-accused, Amruddin Ansari, has been
falsely implicated; he was lifted from his house. He would also
submit that the petitioner no.2, Km. Uzma, is a minor. She is
hospitalized. He would seek protection, particularly with
regard to the petitioner no.2, otherwise. Police will destroy her
life.
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, Amruddin Ansari. It
also records that co-accused, Amruddin Ansari, revealed it to
the police that he would purchase smack from the petitioners.
7. It is true that the petitioners have been named
merely on the basis of the statement given by co-acused,
Amruddin Ansari. 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 petitioners by the co-
accused, Amruddin Ansari, per se, does not hold them guilty.
The Investigating Officer would investigate the matter. In fact,
he would investigate the matter qua the co-accused,
Amruddin Ansari, 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, Amruddin Ansari,
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 petitioners as the persons 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
