Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 885 (UTT)

Sunil Kumar Tehran v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-25

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 No. 108 of 2016, dated 21.10.2016 as Case Crime No. 233 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B of IPC, PS Vikash Nagar, Dehradun, against the petitioner (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 not to harass and arrest the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned FIR No. 108 of 2016, dated 21.10.2016 as Case Crime No. 233 of 2016, offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B of IPC, Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun.” 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 writ petition filed by the co-accused has been decided by this Court vide order dated 17.11.2016, and, therefore, the same order should also be passed in relation to the present writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the private respondent has no reason to object the same. 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 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 . 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 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 02.12.2016, 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.