Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 105 (UTT)

AMAR KUMAR SINGHAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-03-03

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral) The petitioner, by means of present criminal writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR in case crime no. 37 of 2014, under Sections 170, 171, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, relating to police station, Kotwali Uttarkashi, District Uttarkashi. A further prayer has been sought commanding respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to harass and arrest the petitioner in connection with aforesaid FIR, till the collection of credible evidence against the petitioner or till the filing of the report submitted under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of FIR, which was lodged against the petitioner in respect of offences punishable under Sections 170, 171, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that when the co-accused was arrested and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer, he divulged the name of the present petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some kind of interim protection from arrest may be granted to the petitioner. 5. Present criminal writ petition is, therefore, disposed of summarily with the consent of learned counsel for the parties in view of proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 273, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has observed, among other things, that the petitioner should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of information and material collected, that he has committed an offence. Before making arrest, the Investigating Officer is required to satisfy himself that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged by Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. It will not be based upon the ipse dixit of the Police Officer. In other words, petitioner shall be arrested only when the conditions stipulated in Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. are satisfied. 6. Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 12.03.2015. 7. With the direction as above, criminal writ petition is disposed of at the threshold. In other words, petitioner shall be arrested only when the conditions stipulated in Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. are satisfied. 6. Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 12.03.2015. 7. With the direction as above, criminal writ petition is disposed of at the threshold. Stay application no. 1346 of 2015 also stands disposed of.