IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Writ Petition No. 198 of 2011 Sattar ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ………. Respondents Mr. Mahavir S. Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Nandan Arya, AGA for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 2. Date of Judgment : 23.03.2011 JUDGMENT Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. The First Information Report is under challenge on the ground of delay in filing the same and that the petitioner is not associated with the poultry farm for which electricity was being stolen. Whether or not the petitioner is associated or not with the poultry farm is a matter of fact to be ascertained in course of investigation. Mere delay in filing a First Information Report cannot be said to be such an infirmity that the Court can quash the First Information Report. No other ground has been made out. However, it has been stated that the First Information Report does not talk about seizure of any equipment for which the electricity was stolen. Seizure of equipments used for the purpose of theft is permissible and not the equipments for the purpose of which the theft was made. The petition is utterly frivolous and meritless. The same is dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his liberty be protected and he be not arrested. When a First Information Report has alleged a specific complaint against an action on the part of the petitioner, there cannot be any concept of interfering with the liberty of the petitioner. If investigation is a harassment, then no investigation can be done and accordingly, the contention that the petitioner be not harassed is utterly frivolous and meritless. There is not one single statement in the body of the petition that the petitioner ever went to the Investigating Officer or to the Officer in-charge of the police station, after having had come to know about filing of the First Information Report, to help expedite the investigation for the purpose of absolving him. Instead, he is avoiding the police investigator. 2 3. Be that as it may, it is hoped and expected that in the event, petitioner even now extend his cooperation, he shall be appropriately dealt with. (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 23.03.2011 Aswal