Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 973 (UTT)

Kumudani Srivastava v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-12-16

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 31.05.2016, being case crime no. 179 of 2016, under Section 420 IPC, lodged by the respondent no.3 at PS Patel Nagar, District Dehradun against the petitioner (Annexure No.1). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent nos. 1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioner in connection with the impugned FIR dated 31.05.2016, being case crime no. 179 of 2016, under Section 420 IPC lodged by the respondent no. 3 at PS Patel Nagar, District Dehradun against the 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. According to the allegations levelled in the first information report, present petitioner introduced co-accused Vishal to the complainant. Vishal is the person who executed the sale-deed in favour of complaint/reporter. As per the FIR, the petitioner was also given a sum of Rs. 4 lacs by the reporter. Learned counsel for the petitioner denies having taken any money from the reporter. There is delay of about 6 months in lodging the first information report. 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 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. 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. 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 23.12.2016, 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 him to move for recall of this Order, if he feels aggrieved with the same.