Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 355 (UTT)

HAZI AHMED NOOR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2019-05-28

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 Case Crime (F.I.R.) No.122 of 2019, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 325, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station Kiccha District Udham Singh Nagar and for stay of arrest. 2. Heard and perused the records. 3. According to the F.I.R, on 08.05.2019 at about 10:00 a.m. in the morning, when the first informant and her daughters were in their house, the petitioners along with other family members, armed with lathi, danda entered into the house of the first informant; misbehaved and abused them. When the first informant protested it, she was beaten. The first informant sustained a fracture. The neighbourers came and saved them. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that instant F.I.R. is a counter blast of an F.I.R., which was filed by one of the relatives of the petitioners, Hazi Idris against husband of the first informant and others on 08.05.2019 at 11:30 morning; it is argued that petitioners apprehend arrest in mechanical manner; therefore, directions may be issued that the petitioners may not be arrested without following the guidelines as laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 27. 5. It is true that F.I.R. was lodged by Hazi Idris against Wahid Pehalwan and others on 08.05.2019 at 11:30 a.m. under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. In the instant case the F.I.R. has been lodged by the first informant, respondent no.3 herein, against petitioners on 08.05.2019 at 02:02 p.m. Merely, because an F.I.R. is subsequent in the point of time, it cannot be termed as a counter blast. There may be many eventualities and possibilities about an occurrence. These all are the matters for investigation. Its truthfulness has to be ascertained by investigation or at trial as the case may be. Perusal of the F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the case 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. 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 Udham Singh Nagar shall ensure it. 9. Accordingly, with the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.