Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 709 (UTT)

Saurav Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-10-05

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 dated 01.09.2016 registered as Case Crime No. 35 of 2016 (FIR No. 150 of 2016) under Sections 323, 342, 504, 498-A of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Chowki Painga, ITI, District Udham Singh Nagar (Annexure-1). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondents no. 2 not to arrest the petitioners in connection with FIR dated 01.09.2016 registered as Case Crime No. 35 of 2016 (FIR No. 150 of 2016) under Sections 323, 342, 504, 498-A of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Chowki Painga, ITI, 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. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that all the family members of husband of respondent no.2 have been implicated in the criminal case and, therefore, they are entitled to protection in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court to High Courts in Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 , in the following words: “To find out the truth is a Herculean task in a majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. Hon’ble Apex Court cautioned that the allegations of such complaints are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.” 4. In view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , the petitioners should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of information and material collected, that they have committed an offence. In view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , the petitioners should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of 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. 5. 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. 6. Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 12.10.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation. 7. When the investigation of the case will be conducted, it will either culminate into filing of the charge-sheet or submission of final report. This Court has no occasion to interfere in the investigation in between. 8. Therefore, it will be of no use keeping the present criminal writ petition pending. Criminal Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of at the admission stage itself, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, who are 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 her to move for recall of this Order, if she feels aggrieved with the same.