Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 752 (UTT)

Lokesh Kumar 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 quashing the impugned FIR dated 07.08.2016, lodged by respondent no.3 as out of Case Crime No. 324 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 506, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, at Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar (contained as Annexure No. 1 to this Writ Petition). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with impugned FIR dated 07.08.2016, lodged by respondent no. 3, as out of Case Crime No. 324 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 506, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, at Police Station Kotwali Jwalapur, District Haridwar.” 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. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the purchaser of land, and the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner and the attesting witnesses are Mehar Singh and Satish. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that a civil suit is also pending in respect of the sale-deed in question for it’s cancellation. Present FIR has been lodged contrary to the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 63 of the Indian Registration Act. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the first information report is also contrary to Section 57 sub-clause (12) of the Evidence Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no offence under Section 467 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. 5. 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 . 6. 6. 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 she 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. In other words, the petitioner 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 petitioner. 8. 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. 9. 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. 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.