Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 140 (UTT)

Rajesh Singla v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-02-27

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs, among others: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 15.102016 (Case Crime No. 0342 of 2016) under Sections 417, 418, 420 and 406 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Kotwali, Roorkee, District-Haridwar. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondent nos. 1 to 3 not to arrest the petitioner in Case Crime No. 0342 of 2016) under Sections 417, 418, 420 and 406 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Kotwali, Roorkee, District-Haridwar. ” 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. An F.I.R. was lodged by complainant Pradeep Gupta against Rajesh Singla accused, who has filed present criminal writ petition. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that civil remedy is available to the complainant/reporter to pursue his case and also there is an arbitration Clause in the agreement, which can very well be got enforced by the respondent no.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the disputed property is situated outside the State of Uttarakhand. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that no offense prima facie is made out against the petitioner and petitioner are ready to co-operate with the investigating agency. 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 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 purpose 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. 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. 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. Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 06.03.2017, 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 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.