Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 160 (UTT)

Salim Sekh v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-03-07

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners pray for the following reliefs, among others: “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the FIR dated 27.11.2016, being case crime no. 300 of 2016, under Section 353 of IPC & 3/5/11 of Uttarakhand Cow Progeny (Protection) Act lodged by the respondent no.3 at PS Ranipur, District Haridwar against the petitioners (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 petitioners in connection with impugned FIR 27.11.2016, being case crime no. 300 of 2016, under Section 353 of IPC & 3/5/11 of Uttarakhand Cow Progeny (Protection) Act lodged by the respondent no.3 at PS Ranipur, District Haridwar against the petitioners (Annexure No.1).” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the writ petition. 3. A first information report was lodged against five named accused including the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 353 of IPC & 3/5/11 of Uttarakhand Cow Progeny (Protection) Act. The accused persons fled away pushing aside the police personnel. 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 Supreme Court Cases 273, the petitioners should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of 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 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 petitioners 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 15.03.2017, 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 15.03.2017, 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.