Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 29 (UTT)

FAIZAN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2016-01-14

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Mohd. Safdar, Advocate present for the petitioners and Mr. V.S. Pal, A.G.A. present for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. A First Information Report has been lodged by the respondent No.3 which has been registered as Case Crime No.129 of 2015 under Sections 420/386 of IPC, at Police Station Bhagwanpur District Haridwar implicating the present petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, he has sold a land to the respondent No.3/complainant way back in the year 2012 by a registered sale deed. The name of the respondent No.3 has also been mutated in the revenue record. In fact, respondent No.3 has also constructed a house therein. Now there is an allegation against the present petitioner, in First information report that friends of the present petitioner came to the plot in question of respondent No.3 and did Marpeet etc., with him and took away the sale deed. The date of the incident is not mentioned in the FIR. 4. This is a pending matter which has come up before this Court on the following order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the regular Court. “Mohd. Safdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, Deputy Advocate General for the State. On the request of Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State, list in the next week before the Vacation Judge, enabling him to file counter affidavit.” 5. Learned A.G.A. Mr. V.S. Pal submits that he has received information from the Investigating Officer and as per his preliminary report dated 17.12.2015, no offence is presently being made under Section 386 IPC against the present petitioner. Therefore, as of now, the only offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the present petitioner. 6. Considering the nature of offence and since the maximum punishment in the above offence is seven years or less, a limited interference is called for in the matter. 7. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed with the direction to the police authorities to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law and if the arrest of the petitioner is required, the same shall be done under the procedure framed under Section 41 Cr.P.C. read with the direction given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 .