JUDGMENT Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) 1. Since the present writ petitions arise out of the same FIR, therefore, they are being disposed of together by this common Judgment with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. 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 quashing the impugned FIR dated 03.01.2017, lodged by the respondent no.3 arising out of case crime no. 03 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 506 of IPC at Police Station Clementown, District Dehradun (Annexure-1). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 not to arrest the petitioner with impugned FIR dated 03.01.2017, lodged by the respondent no.3 arising out of case crime no. 03 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 506 of IPC at Police Station Clementown, District Dehradun.” 3. 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. 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent no. 3 filed a Civil Suit against the petitioners. He (respondent no.3) did not succeed in obtaining the stay order from the Civil Court, therefore, the petitioners have been implicated in the present criminal case. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the petitioners have been implicated in the criminal case only to pressurize them for settling the disputes in his favour. 5. 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.
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. 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. 7. Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 19.01.2017, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation. 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, who are present. 10. 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 him to move for recall of this Order, if he feels aggrieved with the same. 11. Let a copy of this Order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioners today itself on payment of usual charges.