ALEEM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of present writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash impugned F.I.R. dtd. 1/7/2019, registered as Case Crime No. 295 of 2019, under Sec. 3, 5, 11 of Uttarakhand Cow Progeny (Protection) Act, 2007, registered at Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid F.I.R.

(2.) I have considered the submission advanced by 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.

(3.) The petitioner is directed to appear before the Court concerned on or before 14/8/2019. It is made clear that as soon as the petitioner appears before the Court below and moves bail application, the same shall be considered as far as possible on the same day itself on its merit. In case, bail application is deferred for any reasons (including its rejection), the concerned Magistrate shall forward the papers to the Sessions Court for deciding the bail application on the same day itself.