Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 647 (UTT)

Gurjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-09-28

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners pray for the following reliefs, among others: “(a) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 24.09.2016, registered as FIR No. 282 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 , 506 of IPC and Section 3 (I) (X) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioners in FIR No. 282 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 , 506 of IPC and Section 3 (I) (X) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the writ petition. 3. An FIR was lodged after five months of the incident. The allegation against the petitioners is that respondent no.3 is having a land in Village Rani Nagal, Tehsil Bazpur. She is 80 years old and is suffering from hearing and sight problem. She gave her land to Gurbaksh Singh on batai. On 07.03.2016, Gurbaksh’s son along with their servant came to her and took her to Bazpur on the pretext that she will be taken to a Doctor for her illness. Instead of taking her to the Doctor they took her to a closed room, where thumb impressions were affixed on certain papers saying that these are pension papers. Later on, the informant came to know that her land has been sold. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a purely civil dispute. The FIR has been lodged after five months and the petitioners have mentioned the grounds in their writ petition to show that no offence punishable under Section 467 of IPC is made out against them. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is a purely civil dispute. The FIR has been lodged after five months and the petitioners have mentioned the grounds in their writ petition to show that no offence punishable under Section 467 of IPC is made out against them. 5. Although, one of the offences alleged against the petitioners entails punishment for more than 7 years, but learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no such offence is made out against the petitioner and if the commission of that offence is ignored in respect of the petitioner, other offences are covered by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 . 6. It is provided that the petitioners should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of the 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. 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. 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 petitioners. 8. Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 05.10.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation. 9. 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. The same is accordingly being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present today. 10. In the given facts and circumstances of the present writ petition, this Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to the private respondent. The same is accordingly being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present today. 10. In the given facts and circumstances of the present writ petition, this Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to the private respondent. Still, liberty is granted to her to move for recall of this Order, if she feels aggrieved with the same.