Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 682 (UTT)

Krishna Mohan v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-10-01

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 a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR No. 238 of 2016 dated 25.09.2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC, Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents no. 1 & 2 not tot arrest the petitioners during the pendency of the investigation nor take any coercive steps against them pursuant to the impugned FIR No. 238 of 2016 dated 25.09.2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC, Police Station Khatima, 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. The allegation against the petitioners is that they filed false affidavit in the Municipal Board, Khatima for mutating his name in the House Tax Register. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no offence under Section 467 of IPC is made out against the petitioners. 4. Although, one of the offences alleged against the petitioner entails punishment for more than 7 years, but learned counsel for the petitioner 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 . 5. 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. 6. 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. 6. 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. 7. Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 08.10.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation. 8. 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. 9. 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.