Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 352 (UTT)

SHYAM NARAIN KUSHWAHA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2019-05-27

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2019
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. No.319 of 2019, under Sections 406, 147, 149, 323, 504 & 506 IPC, P.S. Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar and for stay of arrest. 2. Heard and perused the records. 3. According to the F.I.R. the first informant runs a business in the name and style of M/s Satnam Singh Baldev Singh and Company. They entered into a transaction with the petitioners. The petitioners did not pay the balance amount of Rs.14,39,000/-. On 16.05.2018 when the first informant demanded the balance amount from the petitioners, they alongwith co-accused, abused and started assaulting the first informant with lathi, danda. The people gathered there saved the first informant but the petitioners and co-accused threatened the first informant to life. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that this is a civil case, which is given a colour of criminal case; story is not believable; petitioners apprehend that they may be arrested without following the procedural guidelines as laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014)8 SCC 27, therefore, they may be protected from arrest. 5. Perusal of the F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizance offence. Whether the contents of the F.I.R. are true or not it will be tested during investigation or at trial, as the case may be. Therefore, in these proceedings no interference is warranted and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), while interpreting and making reference to the various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pertaining to arrest and production of the accused before the Magistrate, the Hon'ble Court observed as under:- “11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically……." 7. Thereafter, from paragraph no.11.2 to 11.8, Hon'ble Court, in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) issued directions to the Police Officers authorized to make arrest as well as to the Magistrate authorized to order of detention of the accused. 8. Needless to say, Investigating Officer shall abide by the directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) before effecting arrest of the petitioner. The Senior Superintendent of Police, District Uttarkashi shall ensure it. 9. 8. Needless to say, Investigating Officer shall abide by the directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) before effecting arrest of the petitioner. The Senior Superintendent of Police, District Uttarkashi shall ensure it. 9. Accordingly, with the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.