Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 888 (UTT)

Rishabh Srivastava 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: “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 10.11.2016, being FIR No. 316 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 392, 354, 504, 504 of IPC lodged at PS Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar (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. Vide order dated 24.11.2016, learned Deputy Advocate General was requested to seek instructions. 4. On the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is no more wanted under Section 392 IPC, today, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the applicant is wanted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 354, 504, 504 of IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 opposed the writ petition and submitted that all the ingredients of offences alleged are prima facie made out against the petitioner, who is son of an Advocate and, therefore, has been able to manipulate the case in his own way. 6. Since, the offences complained of against the petitioner are covered under the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , therefore, 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. 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 02.12.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation. 9. 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 02.12.2016, 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. 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.