Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 30 (UTT)

IQBAL SINGH @ AKBAL SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-01-11

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs, among others: “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Case Crime No. 78 of 2016, under Sections 420, 465,467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of IPC, Police Station Shyampur, District Haridwar. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1, 2 & 3 not to arrest the present petitioner pursuant impugned FIR no. 78 of 2016, dated 02.11.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of IPC, registered as Case Crime No. 78 of 2016, Police Station Shyampur, 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. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of earlier first information report dated 08.09.2006, final report was submitted by the I.O. with the observation that the FIR has been lodged in order to pressurize the petitioner to withdraw the civil suit. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the civil suit has been decreed and the sale-deed in favour of respondent no.4 has been cancelled. 4. Although, one of the offences alleged against the petitioner entails punishment for more than 7 years, but learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no such offence is made out against the petitioner 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 Supreme Court Cases 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 he 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 18.01.2017, 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.