Tanveer Baig vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3168 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.1438 of 2023
Tanveer Baig                                           ....Petitioner

                                 Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                      ....Respondents

Present:-
              Mr. Mohd. Safdar, 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.586 of

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

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, 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 25.09.2023, smack was

recovered from the co-accused. The co-accused, on

interrogation, revealed that he purchased the smack from the

petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that there is no evidence against the petitioner except the

statement of the co-accused; there is no other link evidence.

5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the

petitioner has a criminal history.

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.

7. It is true that according to the FIR, co-accused,

from whose possession smack was recovered, revealed that

they had purchased smack from the petitioner. It is also true

that such statement is a weak kind of evidence. But then, this

is a petition for quashing of an FIR.

8. The Investigating Officer would definitely

examine the statement given by the co-accused so as to

ascertain as to whether the petitioner was involved in the case

or not. He may be required to gather other evidences so as to

ascertain the involvement, if any, of the petitioner. But, in

this petition, this Court may not examine the truthfulness

and credibility of the FIR. It would fall for scrutiny during

investigation or trial, as the case may be.

9. The FIR definitely discloses commission of

offences. 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.) 16.10.2023 Ravi Bisht