Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 890 (UTT)

Seeta v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-28

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) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned FIR dated 11.11.2016 lodged by the respondent no. 3 at Police Station Vikas Nagar, which has been registered as FIR No. 251 of 2016 relating to offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 328, 377, 504 and 506 of IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 and 2 not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners including his arrest pursuant to the impugned FIR dated 11.11.2016 lodged by the respondent no. 3 at Police Station Vikas Nagar, which has been registered as FIR No. 251 of 2016 relating to offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 328, 377, 504 and 506 of IPC and one punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.” 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. Petitioners in the present writ petition are mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the respondent no.3 (victim). The main allegations are against the husband of the respondent no. 3, who is not petitioner in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that offences alleged against the present petitioners under Sections 328 and 377 of IPC are not made out and if the commission of those offences are ignored in respect of the petitioners, 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. It is provided that the petitioners should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of the 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. 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. Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 05.12.2016, 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, who are present. 8. 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 her to move for recall of this Order, if she feels aggrieved with the same.