Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 751 (UTT)

Navnit Aggarwal v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-10-20

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs, among others: “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the FIR dated 10.02.2016 in case crime no. 30 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, PS Nehru Colony, District Dehradun (annexure no.2). (b) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioner in FIR dated 10.02.2016 in case crime no. 30 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, PS Nehru Colony, District Dehradun (annexure no.2) .” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the writ petition. 3. Allegedly, Ms. Alpana Verma obtained a loan from the Bank on the basis of fake papers. During the investigation, it came to fore that a loan account was opened in the name of Ms. Alpana Verma, fixing the photographs of the present petitioner after procuring his identity card. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no role to play in the entire incident, as his name itself has been misused by Ms. Alpana Verma, and on the basis of the same, a loan has been obtained from the bank. 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 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 . 5. It is provided that the petitioner should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of the information and material collected, that he has 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. 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. 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 27.10.2016, 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 court has no occasion to interfere in between. The same is accordingly being 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 him to move for recall of this Order, if he feels aggrieved with the same.