The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, and the judiciary should not interfere with police investigations unless there is no cognizable offence disclosed in the FIR.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Kumar Verma, J.

This Criminal Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned First Information Report No. 86 of 2022 registered with Police Station Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun; a writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 to 3 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with the impugned First Information Report. Initially, the FIR was registered in the offence under Section 285 of IPC, Section 436 of IPC was added during the investigation.

2. Heard Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta with Mr. Rafat Munir Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

3. According to the First Information Report dated 10.02.2022, the present petitioner – accused had committed mischief by throwing a bottle of explosive substance in the house of the informant, respondent no. 4 on 06.01.2022, and, thereby, caused the destruction of the dwelling house of the respondent no. 4 and this incident can also be seen from the CCTV footage.

4. During the arguments, the learned counsel for the State submitted that according to the instructions of the Investigating Officer, sufficient evidence has been found against the present petitioner so far during the investigation and investigation is still in progress.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this matter; he is an innocent person; the impugned First Information Report has been falsely lodged against the present petitioner, as the husband of the informant-respondent no. 4 used to molest the petitioner due to his perverted sexual preferences and when, the petitioner stopped talking and meeting with Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, the husband of the informant, the impugned First Information Report has been lodged with false allegations; the wife of the petitioner has also made a complaint on 14.02.2020 to the Police Station, Rajpur District Dehradun, however, no action has been taken till date, and, there is not even a prima facie case against the petitioner under Section 436 of IPC.

6. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4/informant opposed the submissions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and submitted that the cognizable offence against the petitioner-accused is disclosed in this matter; merits of the case cannot be tested at this stage and the Investigating Agency should be permitted to complete the investigation.

7. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 436 of IPC. Section 436 reads as follows:-

“436. Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.—Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

8. An offence under Section 436 of IPC has following essentials:

(i) The accused committed mischief;

(ii) He did so by fire or any explosive substance;

(iii) The accused did so with the intention to cause, or knew that it was likely to cause, the destruction of any building;

(iv) Such building was ordinarily used as place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property.

9. It is well settled that during the investigation of the matter, the Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not touch the merit of the case and evidence cannot be appreciated to the effect that the allegations in the F.I.R. are false.

10. In Pepsi Food Limited vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and