Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 329 (UTT)

Abdul Rahman v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-09-04

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - The instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR No. 134 of 2020, under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, Police Station Cantt, District Dheradun. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. 3. Fir in the instant case is in detail. It reveals a conspiracy for trapping a person to deliver money in the name of sale and purchase of Super Antique Articles. According to the FIR, the informant was induced to deliver huge amount of money so that he may get a Super Antique, which may subsequently be sold for millions and millions of Rupees. But, he did not get the super antique. The petitioner, according to the FIR, was CEO of the company, named, Universal Mines and Minerals Corporation in India, under which garb, as per the FIR, the entire transactions, operations took place. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has no role; petitioner is registered with the Government of India; he deals with antiques; he has not been given any money; and no case is made out against him. 5. This is a petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The scrutiny of the FIR is not generally done in these matters. FIR, in the instant case reveals shocking events. The cost of the super antique, which according to the FIR, was assured to the informant was of Rupees 5000 Billon. What is it? Where the money was deposited by the petitioner? Who is the beneficiary? How and why the petitioner was introduced to the informant? Why the name of the petitioner's company surfaced in the FIR? Who else deposited money on such assurances? These are the questions, which have to be considered by the Investigating Officer, therefore, no interference is warranted in this matter. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested in a very routine and mechanical manner without following the guidelines given in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 . 7. Needless to say, arrest is not a routine and mechanical act to be exercised by an Investigating Officer. In para no.11 of the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) directions have been issued. 8. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 . 7. Needless to say, arrest is not a routine and mechanical act to be exercised by an Investigating Officer. In para no.11 of the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) directions have been issued. 8. This Court has no doubt that the Investigating Officer shall follow all the statutory provisions and directions with regard to arrest, if such occasion arises. 9. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.