Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 30 (UTT)

JANKI UPRETI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2016-01-14

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. P.C. Pethshali, Advocate present for the petitioners. 2. Mr. K.S. Rautela, Government Advocate, present for the State/respondent nos.1 & 2. 3. This Court finds that the matter is urgent, hence heard on admission. 4. The First Information Report has been lodged by respondent no. 3, which has been registered as FIR No. 06 of 2016, under Sections 420/467/468 & 471 of IPC, at Police Station ITI, District-Udham Singh Nagar against the present petitioners. 5. There are primarily allegations of cheating against the present petitioners. Petitioner no.1 is a woman and petitioner no.2 is her husband and petitioner nos. 3 & 4 are the two sons of petitioner nos. 1 & 2 respectively. Primarily, the allegation against the petitioner no.1 is that she had cheated the complainant and she had taken money from the complainant/respondent no.3 in the pretext that she will deposit the said amount in the Post office, which was never done by her. 6. This is also prima facie opinion of this Court that though the First Information Report has also been registered under Sections 467/468 & 471 of IPC yet presently from the averments of the First Information Report, the offences against the above provisions are not made out against the present petitioners. This, however, only a prima facie opinion of this Court and it will all depend on further investigation. 7. Considering the nature of offence and since the maximum punishment under Section 420 of IPC is seven years, a limited interference is called for in the matter. 8. The writ petition stands disposed with the direction to the police authorities to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law but as far as the arrest of the petitioners are concerned the same may be done only under the parameters as framed under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. read with the directions given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , are complied with, inter alia, by giving due notice and reasons if the arrest is required. 9. It is made clear that this order shall remain operative till the filing of charge sheet. 10. Urgency application (IA No.223 of 2016) stands disposed. 11. Stay application (CLMA No.508 of 2016) stands disposed.