Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 808 (UTT)

Mam Chand v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-09

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) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR of in Case Crime No. 350 of 2016, under Sections 406, 420, 389, 504 and 506 of IPC, PS Kotwali Manglour, District Haridwar (Annexure No.1). (b) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 & 2 not to harass and arrest the petitioners in view of the impugned FIR till the collection of any credible evidence against the petitioners or till the filing of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.” 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 a Civil Suit was filed by the petitioner no.2 against respondent no.3 and his sons wherein stay was granted by the Civil Court. Despite the injunction order, the respondent no.3 and others obtained forcible possession of the shop in question. The FIR has been falsely lodged on behalf of respondent no. 3 in order to pressurize the petitioners to give up their claim over the shop. 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. 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. 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 16.11.2016, 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.