Uttarakhand High Court
WPCRL/1134/2011 of HARSH SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS on 29 December 2011
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 1134 of 2011 with Interim Relief Application No. 13860 of 2011 Harsh Singh S/o Sri Mohan Singh R/o village Baghar, Post Baghar Police Station Kapkote District Bageshwar …………… Petitioner Versus 1. State
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1134 of 2011with Interim Relief Application No. 13860 of 2011
Harsh Singh S/o Sri Mohan SinghR/o village Baghar, Post BagharPolice Station KapkoteDistrict Bageshwar
…………… Petitioner
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. State of Uttarakhand, through Secretary Homeat Dehradun
2. Station Officer of Police Station Kapkot District Bageshwar
3. Sri Syam Arya District Supply OfficerBageshwarDistrict Bageshwar
…………..Respondents.
Shri Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate, present for the petitionerShri B.S.Parihar, Brief Holder, present for the State.
Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Heard.
(2) By means of this writ petition moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of the First Information Report dated 01.12.2011, relating to offences punishable under section 406, 409 and 420 I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, Police Station Kapkote, District Bageshwar.
(3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is appointed Contractor for supply of food grains from food centre Bharadi to distribution centre Baghar, in District Bageshwar. The allegation against him is that villagers of village Baghar did not receive any rice/food grains, since July 2011. The explanation given by learned counsel for the petitioner is that due to heavy rain the route for Baghar got disrupted. However, it is not clear as to how long the route remained disrupted.
(4) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the State, and in the facts and circumstances, this court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation of the case.
(5) Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed summarily with the observation that if the petitioner Harsh Singh surrenders before the court concerned, his bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay, keeping in mind the plea that due to heavy rain the petitioner was prevented from taking the food grains to the village. (Interim Relief Application No. 13860 of 2011, stands disposed of).
Dt.29.12.2011NP
(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)