Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 691 (UTT)

Mahadev Prasad Nautiyal v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-10-03

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petitions, the petitioners pray for the following reliefs, among others: “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 27.06.2016 registered as Case Crime No. 198 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC, PS Patel Nagar, District Dehradun.” 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. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submitted that there are chances of amicable between the parties in near future. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General stated that investigation is going on in the matter. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no offence under Section 467 of IPC is made out against the petitioners, even if the ingredients of FIR may be conceded to be true. Validity of Will in question is under challenge before the Civil Court. 6. 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 petitioners 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 . 7. 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, 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 8. 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. 9. Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 10.10.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation. 10. 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.