Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 25 (UTT)

Deepak Kandpal v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-01-11

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners pray for the following relief, among others: “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the first information report dated 05.01.2017 registered as FIR/Case Crime No. 01 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Ranikhet, District Almora. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents no.1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioners in pursuant of the FIR dated 05.01.2017 registered as FIR/Case Crime No. 01 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered at Police Station Ranikhet, District Almora.” 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. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that no injury has been sustained by the respondent no.3 and the matter is squirrelly covered with 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. 4. 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 petitioners. 6. Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 18.01.2017, 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 petitioners. 6. Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 18.01.2017, 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, 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.