JUDGMENT :

By the instant petition, preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant is challenging the order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Application No. 369 of 2023 State vs. Mohd. Arman in connection with FIR No. 415 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 21 and 60 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’), whereby the application, preferred under Section 156(3) and 172(2) of Cr.P.C. were rejected.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that one S.I. Anil Joshi lodged an FIR being FIR No. 415 of 2023 under Sections 8, 21, and 60 of the NDPS Act against one Mohd. Arman on 08.10.2023 at Police Station Jaspur, District – Udham Singh Nagar, as 07.15 grams of smack was recovered from Mohd. Arman. As per contents of the FIR, on being caught, he stated that he sells smack for a lady named Gulnaaz (applicant). Thereafter, the name of the applicant was also included in the FIR as one of the accused.

3. The applicant challenged the said FIR before this Court by way of Criminal Writ Petition No. 1478 of 2023 Gulnaz vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, which was dismissed by this Court on 20.10.2023 by observing as follows:-

“7. Mere statement of co-accused is definitely a weak kind of evidence. But, then, at the stage of recording of the FIR, when the investigation is underway, the Investigating Officer would test the credibility of the statement of the co-accused, as to whether the petitioner, in any manner, is involved in the case or not. He may have occasion to see the bank transactions or call details, or any other such material, so as to verify the statement of the co-accused.

8. The FIR definitely discloses commission of offences. Smack, according to the FIR, has been recovered from the co-accused. Insofar as the role of the petitioner is concerned, as stated, it would find scrutiny during investigation or trial, as the case may be. At this stage, the FIR may not be quashed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

9. The petition is dismissed in limine.”

4. Thereafter, the present applicant preferred an Application under Section 156(3) before the Special Judge, NDPS, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar for monitoring of the investigation of FIR No. 415 of 2023, where the applicant is one of the accused.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that except the statement given by the main accused, namely Mohd. Arman, there is nothing on record against the present applicant on the basis of which she can be linked with the aforesaid crime and the statement and the confessional statement, as made by the main accused, is a weak type of evidence, which cannot be relied upon. He further submits that since the applicant is aggrieved, she was entitled to move an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. praying therein for monitoring of the investigation. Hence, for monitoring of the investigation, she moved an Application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Udham Singh Nagar vide order dated 30.10.2023. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has approached this Court.

6. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others (2008) 2 SCC 409, particularly on Para 27 of the said judgment, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

“27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discoura