Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 469 (UTT)

Raj Kumar Aggarwal v. Komal Singh Rawat

2021-10-23

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

body2021
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar. Tiwari, J. - WPCRL No. 742 of 2016 filed by the petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 28.11.2016. Operative portion of the said order is reproduced below:- "It is provided that 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. are satisfied." 2. Alleging non-compliance of the said order, this contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. A response affidavit has been filed by Komal Singh Rawat, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Clementown, District Dehradun. Para 6 to 8 of the said affidavit are reproduced below: "6. That after the order dated 28.11.2016 served upon the then Investigating Officer of the case, several times the notices were sent to the petitioner to appear before him for recording his statement as well as for necessary interrogation during the investigation, but the petitioner never cooperate in the investigation by not appearing before the investigating officer during the investigation. 7. That during the course of investigation, certain material and evidences have been collected by the investigating officer and which made reason to believe that the arrest of the petitioner is necessary as on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation, it was found the direct involvement of the petitioner in the crime in question. The true/photocopy/correct typed version/copy of the notice dated 24.03.2017 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit. 8. That after obtaining the order dated 28.11.2016 by the petitioner, the petitioner never cooperated with the investigation as well as he was remained absconded and avoided to contact with the investigating officer, even did not bother for recording his statement during the investigation, consequently, the answering respondent intimated to the Joint Director (Law), Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand through Fax on 16.02.2018 as well as copy of receipt of the Fax dated 16.02.2018 are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 2 (Colly) to this affidavit." 4. From the stand taken in the response affidavit by the opposite party, it is apparent that due to non-cooperative attitude maintained by the petitioner, opposite party had to arrest him. 5. The order dated 10.06.2018 of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dehradun is on record as Annexure No. 2 to the contempt petition. Perusal of the said order indicates the reason for taking petitioner into judicial custody. 6. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a case of willful disobedience of the order of this Court. 7. Accordingly, contempt petition is closed. Notice issued to the opposite party is hereby discharged.