Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 810 (UTT)

Jakir Hussain v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-09

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present criminal writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs, among others: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 14.08.2016 registered as case crime no. 258 of 2016, under Sections 409, 120B IPC, relating to P.S. Kotwali Manglore, District Haridwar. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to arrest the petitioner in case crime no. 258 of 2016, under Sections 409, 120B IPC, relating to P.S. Kotwali Manglore, District Haridwar. 2. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents brought on record. 3. An FIR was lodged by the complainant / respondent no. 3 against the petitioner and another, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 409, 120B IPC. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that report is lodged by former Gram Pradhan of the village against the present applicant, who is Manager of Madarsa. The allegations is that books, which were meant for free distribution by the Government of Uttarakhand, were been taken by the petitioner in a vehicle, to be sold as scrap. As per FIR, whereas the petitioner fled away, his driver was apprehended on the spot. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that ingredients of offence punishable under section 409 IPC, prima facie, is not made out against the petitioner and if that offence is ignored then the other offence is covered by the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme 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 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. 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. 6. 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. 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 16.11.2016, 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 present today. 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. (Stay application no. 11452 of 2016 also stands disposed of).