On 16th February 2018, The High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Mukarram and Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors stated that “If FIR, prima facie, discloses commission of an offence, Court does not normally stop the investigation…”
Brief facts of the case…
The petition was filed by the Mukarram and others seeking the following reliefs:
- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. on 29th December 2017
- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners under Section-3/5/11 of Uttarakhand Protection of Cow Progeny Act 2007 P.S. Bhagwanpur District Haridwar till the pendency of present writ petition.”
The facts, relevant to the writ petition, are that, on 29th December 2017 , police received information from Mukbir that some persons are indulged in cow slaughtering. On receiving this information, police reached on the spot and recovered 80 Kg. beef, 1 skin and one alive cow and a calf. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that two persons were arrested from the spot; whereas, the petitioners were said to have been flew away from the spot.
Learned counsel for the Mukarram and others submitted that allegations made against the petitioners in the impugned F.I.R. are totally false and, therefore, protection should be granted to the petitioners. Learned Deputy Advocate General vehemently opposed the writ petition. He submitted that allegation made against the petitioners is serious in nature. Therefore, interim relief should not be granted to the petitioners and the writ petition filed by them deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on record.
The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of West Bengal v. Swapna Kumar, has held that if an offence is disclosed, Court will not normally interfere with the investigation into the case, and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If the FIR, prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence, the Court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences.
It was considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of F.I.R. Contents of F.I.R. disclose offence and it is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the case and, thereafter, either to file charge sheet or final report in the matter. It is not a fit case, where the High Court should interfere in this criminal writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
Learned counsel for the Mukarram and others then submitted that in case offence is made out against the petitioners, in that event, the petitioners will surrender before the Court concerned and will move the bail applications and the Court’s below may be directed to decide their bail applications same day.
Therefore The High Court of Uttarakhand considering the submission of learned counsel for Mukarram and others, it is directed that in case petitioners surrender and move bail applications, the same shall be decided by the Courts below expeditiously, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law.