Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 466 (UTT)

Sanjeev Kumar Gagneja v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-08-11

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present criminal writ petition, the petitioners seek following reliefs, among others: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the FIR dated 05.07.2016 registered as FIR No. 329 of 2016, relating to P.S. Rudrapur, District-U.S. Nagar, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to arrest the petitioners till the pendency of the present writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents brought on record. 3. An FIR was lodged by the complainant/respondent no. 3 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498A IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.07.2016 granted interim protection from arrest to the petitioners, subject to their cooperation in the investigation. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the investigation of the case is under progress and it will take sometime to complete the same. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has proposed that the writ petition may be disposed of, in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , inasmuch as the investigation is going on and, ultimately, it will culminate either into filing of the charge-sheet or submission of final report, whichever way the case may go, against the petitioners and this Court has no occasion to interfere with the investigation, therefore, it will be of no use keeping the present criminal writ petition pending. 6. The criminal writ petition is accordingly disposed of in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case (supra) wherein it was held that the petitioners should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of information and material collected, that they have 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. 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, the petitioners 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. 7. Writ petition thus stands disposed of with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.