Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 900 (UTT)

Ajay Singh Rawat v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-30

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present criminal writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 16.01.2016, registered as crime no. 12 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, relating to Police Station, Nehru Colony, District Dehradun. A writ in the nature of mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to harass and arrest the petitioner in connection with aforementioned FIR. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents brought on record. 3. When the writ petition was taken up for admission, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.03.2016 granted interim protection from arrest to the accused-petitioner. The learned co-ordinate Bench observed as follows: “As an interim measure, it is provided that though the investigation may go on but till the next date of listing petitioner shall not be arrested nor any coercive measures shall be taken against him in pursuance of case crime no. 12 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, at police station Nehru Colony, District Dehradun, provided the petitioner cooperates in the investigation.” 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence punishable under Section 467 IPC as such is prima facie made out against the petitioner on a bare reading of the first information report. 5. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the investigation of the case is going on. 6. Although, one of the offences alleged against the petitioner entails punishment for more than seven 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 . 7. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 07.12.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation. 10. 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. 11. 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.