Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 91 (UTT)

PRADEEP SINGH NAMDHARI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-02-13

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner prays for the following relief, among others: “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 12.01.2017 registered as FIR No. 19 of 2017, under Sections 323,452,504 and 506 of IPC, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in FIR No. 19 of 2017, under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 of IPC, Police Station Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, till pendency of the present petition.” 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 in a case of matrimonial dispute, wife of the petitioner has filed an FIR against him for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the applicant is entitled for protection in the line 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. 4. The petitioner should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of 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. 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. 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 petitioner. 6. Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 20.02.2017, 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 petitioner. 6. Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 20.02.2017, 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, 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.