Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 77 (UTT)

MURLIDHAR PUROHIT v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-01-30

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs, among others: “Issue writ Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned F.I.R dated 13.10.2016 registered against unknown persons at police station Purola District Uttarkashi as FIR no. 23 of 2016 under section 420, 467, 468 and 120 B I.P.C, after calling the entire record. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in case crime no. 23 of 2016 under section 420, 467, 468 and 120B I.P.C. Police Station Purola, District Uttarkashi, till the pendency of the writ petition.” 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. An F.I.R was lodged by Deputy Director of the Sanctuary against unknown accused. The allegation is that somebody made manipulations in the cash-book to incorporate the name of one Harsh Pati Purohit. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that consequent upon the departmental enquiry, the petitioner no.1 was exonerated. The regularization of the petitioner no.2 was cancelled which was challenged by him before this Court in a writ petition. The said writ petition was allowed and a liberty was granted to the department to hold a departmental enquiry. After the departmental inquiry, the services of petitioner no.2 were done away with against which he again filed a writ petition, which is pending adjudication. Present criminal proceedings have been initiated only after that. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigating agency during interrogation and investigation. 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. 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 06.02.2017, 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. 9. In the given facts and circumstances of the present writ petition, this Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to the respondent no.2. Still, liberty is granted to him to move for recall of this Order, if he feels aggrieved with the same. 10. Urgency Application being IA No. 510 of 2017 and Stay Application No. 834 of 2017 stand disposed of.