NAVEEN ARYA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT cannot be said that the information is such that on proof thereof, it can be held that no cognizable offence has been committed. However, while lodging the complaint, the word apprehended has been used. IT is the contention that in the circumstances, the allegations are mere surmises and conjectures. In addition to that, it has been contended that the information was furnished two months after the incident and also after recording statement of the informant under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure. IT has been contended that in the statement so recorded, there was no allegation, even remotely connected with the allegations made in the information.

(2.) A look at the First Information Report makes it clear that the reason for lodgment thereof, was acquisition of knowledge at a later stage. The information itself makes it clear that the informant, after acquiring the information, which percolated to him at a later stage, brought the same to the notice of the Police. While deducing the conclusion on the information, an apprehension was expressed. That is not conclusive. The matter is required to be investigated and the investigating agency as duty bound shall investigate the matter without being influenced by such apprehension. From the records before this Court, it does not appear that the petitioner was otherwise associated with the victim. That aspect too has to be kept in mind.