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 first information report 21.10.2016 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC as case crime no. 81 of 2016, Police Station Rajpur Sadar, District Dehradun first information report 21.10.2016 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC as case crime no. 81 of 2016, Police Station Rajpur Sadar, District Dehradun (contained as Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition). (b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with impugned first information report 21.10.2016 under section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC as case crime no. 81 of 2016, Police Station Rajpur Sadar, District Dehradun first information report 21.10.2016 under section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC as case crime no. 81 of 2016, Police Station Rajpur Sadar, District Dehradun (contained as Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition).” 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. Respondent no.3 lodged an FIR at Police Station Rajpur, Deehradun, on 21.10.2016, against the petitioner and 12 other persons alleging therein that they committed fraud and prepared forged Will and thereby mutated the property in their name. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no role has been assigned to the present petitioner and the mutation case is pending before the Revenue Authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the grounds A to T given the writ petition. The Court need not reproduce all or any of them for the sake of brevity. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that no prima facie case under Section 467 IPC is made out against the petitioner and if that section 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 . 4. 4. 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. 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. 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 petitioner. 6. Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 01.12.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation. 7. 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.