Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 544 (UTT)

Rahul Saini v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-09-05

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present criminal writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs, among others: (i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the FIR dated 13.07.2016 lodged at P.S. Laksar, District Haridwar, against the petitioner no. 1 (Annexure -4 to the writ petition). (ii) To pass a suitable writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (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 petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A IPC, relating to P.S. Laksar, District Haridwar, alleging therein that the daughter of respondent no. 3 was abducted by the petitioner. (4) Rahul Saini (petitioner) and Tasleem @ Rashmi (proforma respondent no. 4) are present in person before the Court duly identified by Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate. Both of them say that they are major and had married to each other on 12.07.2016 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Saharanpur. Respondent no. 4 says that earlier her name was Tasleem and after marriage with the petitioner Rahul Saini she is now known as Rashmi. Conversion certificate, affidavit in support thereof and marriage certificate have been brought on record by the petitioner. Documents have been filed in support of their statements. According to Tasleem @ Rashmi (respondent no. 4) she had studied upto Class VII and her date of birth is 07.07.1996. By that analogy, she has attained the age of majority. (5) Although the offences complained of against the petitioner are not covered by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 273, but considering the fact that the petitioner and respondent no. 4 are major and they have married to each other, therefore, it will be of no use keeping the present criminal writ petition pending for disposal, inasmuch as, the investigation is going on and ultimately the investigation will come to its logical conclusion only under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code either by a final report or by a charge sheet. (6) The criminal writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties with the direction that 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, the 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. (7) Needless to say that the Investigating Officer of the case shall abide by the aforesaid directions of Hon’ble Apex Court, before affecting the arrest of the petitioner. (8) Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 14.09.2016, and on such subsequent dates, as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation. (9) In the given facts and circumstances of the present writ petition, this Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to the respondent no. 3. Still, liberty is granted to him to move for recall of this order, if he feels aggrieved with the same. (10) Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner today itself on payment of usual charges.