Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 448 (UTT)

VIJAY MONTODE & THREE v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-08-22

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 first information report dated 20.09.2016 registered at case crime no. 278 of 2016 under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 IPC PS Haldwani, District Nainital. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3, not to arrest the petitioners in connection with impugned first information report dated 20.09.2016 registered at case crime no. 278 of 2016 under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 IPC PS Haldwani, District Nainital. " 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 has been filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC alleging forgery of some documents. It is alleged that the applicants have committed forgery by preparing some fictitious documents. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR has been lodged only to take control over some properties of Church. Learned counsel for the applicants emphatically submitted that it is dispute between two factions of DIOCESAN Trust Association [LDTA] and, therefore, it is an abuse of the process of the Court. Civil Litigation between the parties is also pending before the competent court. 4. Without entering into the merits of the case, this Court proposes to pass the following order, in the interest of justice. 5. It is provided that the petitioners 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 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. 6. 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. 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, if any, of the petitioners. 7. Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 29.08.2017, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigations. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. The Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to the private respondent, yet opportunity of hearing shall be granted to him if he approaches the Court on his own, either in person or through counsel, and if he feels aggrieved with this Order, which is purely based upon statutory foundation. 11. Let a copy of this Order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioners today itself on payment of usual charges.