Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 945 (UTT)

Deepak Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-12-08

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. Misc. Application along with affidavit of service is taken on record. IA No. 5568 of 2016 made therefor stands disposed of. 2. 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 calling for the records and quashing the FIR dated 19.02.2016 (Annexure No. 1), lodged by the respondent no.3, on the basis of which, a case crime no. 29 of 2016 (Chowki Silsila no. 5 of 2016) under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B of IPC was registered at Police Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun, so far as it relates to the petitioner.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the writ petition. 4. On receiving telephonic instructions from his client, learned counsel for the respondent no.3/Bank submitted that the entire loan amount along with interest has been repaid by the petitioner in favour of respondent-Bank and, thereafter, account of the petitioner has been closed. 5. Although, one of the offences alleged against the petitioner entails punishment for more than 7 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 . 6. It is provided that the petitioner should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of the 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. 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. Petitioners are 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. 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.