Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 648 (UTT)

Raunak Malhotra 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) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned FIR dated 10.09.2016 lodged by the respondent no.3 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Dehradun which has been registered as Case Crime No. 286 of 2016 relating to offences punishable under Sections 325, 504, 506, 308 and 392 of IPC. (b) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 and 2 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in connection with FIR dated 10.09.2016 lodged by the respondent no.3 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Dehradun which has been registered as Case Crime No. 286 of 2016 relating to offences punishable under Sections 325, 504, 506, 308 and 392 of IPC” 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. The allegation against the accused persons is that they assaulted the informant and forcibly took away cash of Rs. 25,000/-. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 is a small shopkeeper, who is a roadside vendor. Petitioner no. 2 is a politician and petitioner no. 3 is a minor studying in Sri Gururam Rai Public School in class IX. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that petitioner no.1 runs his business as a street vendor next to the shop of respondent no.3, who wanted the petitioner no.1 to remove his belongings and thereby created pressure on him. Petitioner no.2 insisted for resolving the matter amicably, but to no avail. 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 petitioners, 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. 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. Still, liberty is granted to him to move for recall of this Order, if he feels aggrieved with the same.