PARAMJEET Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. dated 27.09.2019, registered as Case Crime No. 138 of 2019, under Sections 60(2)/72 Excise Act at Police Station Dineshpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents not to arrest petitioner pursuant to impugned F.I.R. during pendency of the writ petition.

(2.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant crime.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. Contents of F.I.R. prima facie disclose commission of offence. In my opinion, it is not a fit case where the Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and thereafter to file either the charge sheet or final report in the matter. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of West Bengal v. Swapna Kumar, (1982) 1 SCC 561, 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. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.