Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 931 (UTT)

Rao Khurram v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-12-07

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) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 30.11.2016, being case crime no. 304 of 2016, under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 of IPC, lodged by the respondent no.3 at PS Kotwali, District Haridwar against petitioner (Annexure No.1). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding /directing the respondents no. 1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with the impugned FIR dated 30.11.2016, being case crime no. 304 of 2016, under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 of IPC, lodged by the respondent no.3 at PS Kotwali, District Haridwar against petitioner (Annexure No.1).” 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 respondent no.3 did not come to the registry office on the date fixed for registry of the sale-deed and the petitioner is ready to return the earnest money taken from the respondent no.3. 4. In view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 , 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. 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 petitioner. 6. Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 15.12.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation. 7. 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 petitioner. 6. Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 15.12.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation. 7. 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. 8. 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, who are present. 9. 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.