Parvej Ahmad And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3235 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Criminal Writ Petition No.1441 of 2023
Parvej Ahmad and Others                               ....Petitioners

                                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.
             Mr. Matloob Rawat, Advocate for the respondent no.3.

                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioners- Parvej Ahmad, Jangbahadur,

Murtaza and Mohd. Irfan seek quashing of FIR No.371 of

2023, under Sections 323, 427, 504 and 506 IPC, Police

Station Kaliyar Sharif, District Haridwar, with related reliefs.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3

appeared through video conferencing.

3. According to the FIR, on 05.09.2023, the

petitioners took timber from the field of the informant, the

respondent no.3. When questioned, the FIR records that the

petitioners abused and threatened the informant to life.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that the petitioners are the owner of the field, from

where they took the timber; the FIR is much delayed; the

incident allegedly took place on 05.09.2023, whereas the FIR

has been lodged on 26.09.2023.

5. The Court wanted to know from learned counsel

for the petitioners as to where is the record that the

petitioners are the owner of Khasra No. 780, which, according

to the FIR, belongs to the informant? He would submit that,

in fact, the FIR is not correct with regard to the Khasra

Number.

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. Delay in lodging of an FIR, per se, may not be a

ground to quash the FIR. The FIR records that timber was

forcibly taken from the land of the informant. When

questioned, he was abused and threatened to life also.

8. The FIR discloses commission of offence. What is

its truthfulness and credibility, it would fall for scrutiny

during investigation or 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.

9. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 19.10.2023 Ravi Bisht