Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 92 (UTT)

NEETU KUMAR 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 seeks the following reliefs, among others: “(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the FIR dated 22.11.2016 registered as Case Crime No. 371 of 2016, under Sections 363 and 366-A of IPC, at PS Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 & 2 not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the FIR dated 22.11.2016 registered as Case Crime No. 371 of 2016, under Sections 363 and 366-A of IPC, at PS Kotwali Gangnahar, District Haridwar and further be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere in peaceful living of the petitioner at their resident.” 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. In a criminal case registered under Sections 363 and 366-A of IPC, respondent no. 3 himself has mentioned the age of his daughter as 17 years on 22.11.2016. According to high school mark sheet of the victim her date of birth is 06.07.1999. By that analogy she is more than 17 years as on the date of incident. 4. It is the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s marriage has been solemnized with daughter of respondent no.3 on 20.11.2016, at Saharanpur. The first information report was lodged at Haridwar (Uttarakhand). Since the marriage was solemnized at Saharanpur, therefore, a writ was moved by the daughter of respondent no.3 and the petitioner for protection before Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in which they were granted protection. 5. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee in his order dated 17.01.2017 refused to give the victim in supurdagi of her father on the grounds which have been indicated in the order passed. 6. Considering the facts narrated herein above, the Court finds it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the consent of learned counsel of the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State/respondents no. 1 & 2 in the interest of justice, as follows: 7. 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. 1 & 2 in the interest of justice, as follows: 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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.