Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 953 (UTT)

Rubina Parveen v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-12-09

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 impugned FIR dated 28.10.2016, being case crime no. 161 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, lodged by the respondent no.3 at PS Prem Nagar, District Dehradun against the petitioners (Annexure No. 3). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no.2 not to arrest the petitioners in connection with FIR dated 28.10.2016, being case crime no. 161 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, lodged by the respondent no.3 at PS Prem Nagar, District Dehradun against the petitioners (Annexure No. 3).” 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. The allegation against the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that she sold the property which was already sold earlier and thereby they received pecuniary benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the present writ petition be also decided in terms of criminal writ petition no. 1483 of 2016 of co-accused Naveen Kumar Gupta and another, which was done by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2016. 4. Although, one 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 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 . 5. 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 she 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. 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. 6. 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. 7. Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 16.12.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation. 8. 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. 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.