Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 627 (UTT)

Arjun Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-09-26

ALOK SINGH, K.M.JOSEPH

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioners are seeking the following reliefs in the present writ petition: “a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 & 2 & 3 and 6 & 7 to secure the protection to the life of the petitioners from the respondent no. 4 and 5 and their other companions by providing immediate security to the petitioners in the District Court Compound, Roshanabad, District – Haridwar and permit to do their usual work as an Advocate and Clerk respectively in their Chamber No. 503 situated at Didstrict Court Compound, Roshanabad, District-Haridwar respectively during court working hours directly and indirectly. b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 89 of 2016 Under Section 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and under Section 3(1)(X) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station – Sidkul, District – Haridwar (contained as Annexure No.-1) to this writ petition. c. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents No. 1 and 2 not to harass and arrest the petitioners in view of the impugned FIR till the filing of the report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C.” 2. Very briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:- Petitioner no. 1 is a permanent practicing Advocate at District Court, Roshanabad, District Haridwar at Chamber No. 503 since 2012 and he is a member of the District Bar Association, Haridwar. Petitioner no. 2 is his father and doing his work as Clerk of Advocate in the same Court Compound for a long time. There is a reference to some dispute with respondent no. 4. There is further reference to an FIR against the petitioner under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(X) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is further case of the petitioners that there is threat at the instance of respondent nos. 4 & 5. Hence, the petition. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the party respondents. 4. Read order dated 03.08.2016: “Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 & 3. Mr. 4 & 5. Hence, the petition. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the party respondents. 4. Read order dated 03.08.2016: “Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 & 3. Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the respondent n. 4. Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for respondent nos. 6 & 7. Service on respondent no. 5 is not complete. Petitioners to take steps within three days to serve respondent no. 5. In the meantime, we record the submission on behalf of respondent nos. 4, 6 & 7 that they will not cause any obstruction to the first petitioner carrying out practice as a lawyer from Chamber No. 503. We also make it clear that neither the pendency of this writ petition nor the order, which we have passed today recording the submission of the party respondents, will stand in the way of the cases/F.I.R. lodged against petitioners being investigated in accordance with law.” 5. Today, we notice that the 5th respondent has been served and he appeared through Sri Gaurav Singh, Advocate. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 would also submit that he will not cause any threat to the petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 4, 6 & 7 would also submit that they will not cause any obstruction to petitioner no. 2 also. 6. In the light of the above submissions, we dispose of the writ petition recording the submissions of respondent nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7 that they will not cause any obstruction to the first petitioner carrying out his practice as a lawyer from Chamber No. 503 and also that they will not cause any threat to petitioner no. 2. 7. We make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of investigation and action as per law in respect of FIR registered against the petitioners.