Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 335 (UTT)

Harish Chandra v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-09-09

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioner Harish Chandra filed the instant petition for quashing of an FIR No. 395 of 2020, under Sections 427, 457, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1)(d), 3 (1)(r), 3 (2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Ramnagar, District Nainital . 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. 3. According to the FIR, the informant was running a shop in the house of the petitioner in Pirumdara, District Nainital. On 08.08.2020, midnight at 1:27, the informant was told that locks of her shops have been broken and the articles have been kept outside the shop. When the informant reached at the spot, she found that the locks were opened and all the articles were outside on the road, which were worth about Rs. 5 6 Lakhs. The informant informed the Police, but, the Police did not react. In the morning at 5:30, when the informant and her brother were in the process of keeping the articles inside the shop, the co-accused Dinesh Sati armed with a pistol threatened the informant to vacate the shop immediately or else to face the consequences. There are other averments, as well, in the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he does not want to argue on the merits. The simple argument is that the petitioner may not be arrested without following the statutory provision and directions of the Courts on the subject of arrest. 5. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that against coaccused Dinesh Sati, non-bailable warrants have been obtained by the Investigating Officer from the Special Court at Nainital. 6. In fact, co-accused Dinesh Sati had earlier filed a Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1324 of 2020, which has been decided on 07.08.2020. It is a petition filed for quashing of an FIR. In case, FIR discloses commission of offences, generally, no interference is warranted. In the instant case the FIR discloses commission of offences. The credibility of the averments in FIR are always subject to scrutiny during investigation or at trial, as the case may be. In fact, in the instant case, it was also argued in the case of Dinesh Sati that a video clipping of the incident at 5:30 on 08.08.2020 has also been prepared, which shows the role of the co-accused. 7. In fact, in the instant case, it was also argued in the case of Dinesh Sati that a video clipping of the incident at 5:30 on 08.08.2020 has also been prepared, which shows the role of the co-accused. 7. Having considered all the aspects of this matter, this Court is of the view that no interference, as such, is warranted in the case. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised concern that the petitioner may be arrested without following the procedure. 9. Needless to say, arrest is not a mechanical act of the Investigating Officer. First and foremost, he has to ascertain the complicity of a person in the offence and thereafter, to weigh in his mind the need for arresting. This Court has no doubt that the Investigating Officer, in the instant case, shall also follow the law on the subject of arrest, if any occasion to arrest arises in the instant case. 10. With the above observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.