Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 909 (UTT)

Ankit Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-11-30

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) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR of case crime no. 69 of 2016, under Sections 363, 366, 504 and 506 of IPC, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar (annexure no.1) to this writ petition. (b) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to harass the petitioners directly or indirectly and arrest the petitioners in view of the impugned FIR till the collection of any credible evidence against the petitioners or till the filing of the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.” 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. An FIR was lodged by respondent no.3, who is father of respondent no.4. Respondent no.4 as well as petitioner no.1 are present in person before the Court, duly identified by their counsel Ms. Lovely Grover and Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocates. Both respondent no. 4 and petitioner no.1 say that they have married to each other. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the Hon’ble Division Bench has also granted protection to petitioner no. 1 and respondent no.4 vide order dated 29.11.2016. Smt. Respondent no.4 (Rashi @ Rizwana @ Razia) submitted that she has married to Ankit Kumar (petitioner no.1). Both respondent no. 4 and petitioner no. 1 are major. 4. Respondent no.4 is represented by Ms. Lovely Grover, Advocate. She says that she has no objection if the petitioners are granted relief under Section 41 Cr.P.C. 5. Although, some of the offences alleged against the petitioners entails punishment for more than 7 years, but learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no such offence is made out against the petitioners and if the commission of those offences is 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 Supreme Court Cases 273. 6. 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. 6. 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. 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. 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 petitioners. 8. Petitioners are 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. 9. 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 same is accordingly being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 10. In the given facts and circumstances of the present writ petition, this Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to the respondent no. 3. Still, liberty is granted to him to move for recall of this Order, if he feels aggrieved with the same. 11. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioners today itself on payment of usual charges.