WPCRL/1232/2022 of MOHAMMAD GULZAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1232 of 2022

Mohammad Gulzar ...…………. Petitioner

versus

State of Uttarakhand & others...…………. Respondents

Mr. Mehboob Rahi, learned counsel for the writ applicant. Mr. J. S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Ms. Manisha Rana, learned AGA for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 2.

-----------

Judgementdated: 11.07.2022

Hon’ble Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

Upon hearing the learned counsels, the Court made the following Order.

1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.By means of this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the FIR lodged by his wife, dated 12.06.2022, registered as FIR No. 0333 of 2022, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the FIR lodged by his wife, dated 12.06.2022, registered as FIR No. 0333 of 2022, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3.We have carefully examined the FIR. There is specific allegation in the FIR of torture of the petitioner’s wife. There is also specific allegation of criminal intimidation and insult. specific allegation in the FIR of torture of the petitioner’s wife. There is also specific allegation of criminal intimidation and insult.

4.Learned counsel for the writ applicant could not satisfy the Court about the reasons why the statement made in the FIR should be disbelieved. In any way, it is settled principal of law that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court should not examine the veracity and truthfulness of the FIR. The Court is required to see as to whether the allegations made in the FIR makes out the cognizable offence or not. satisfy the Court about the reasons why the statement made in the FIR should be disbelieved. In any way, it is settled principal of law that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court should not examine the veracity and truthfulness of the FIR. The Court is required to see as to whether the allegations made in the FIR makes out the cognizable offence or not.

5.In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that in this case, at this stage the Court cannot come to prima facie conclusion that no case is made out against the petitioner under the offences alleged above, and therefore in these circumstances, there is no reason to quash the FIR. We are also not satisfied about the fulfilling of the conditions required for quashing of the FIR as enunciated in the cases of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335; R.P.Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866; and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC online SC 315. that in this case, at this stage the Court cannot come to prima facie conclusion that no case is made out against the petitioner under the offences alleged above, and therefore in these circumstances, there is no reason to quash the FIR. We are also not satisfied about the fulfilling of the conditions required for quashing of the FIR as enunciated in the cases of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335; R.P.Kapur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866; and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC online SC 315.

6.Hence, the WP (Crl) is dismissed being devoid of merit. merit.

7.Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. proper application.

(S.K.Mishra, J.)