Uttarakhand High Court
Chaya Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 September, 2016
Author: U.C.Dhyani
Bench: U.C.Dhyani
WPCRL No. 1295 of 2016 U.C.Dhyani, J.
Mr. H. C. Pathak, Advocate, present for the writ petitioner.
Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Mr. V. S. Pal, learned AGA and Mr. K. S. Rawal, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondents no.1 & 2.
An FIR has been lodged against the petitioner being Case Crime No. 272 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, at Police Station Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
Petitioner is a loanee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a bare reading of the FIR, no offence, even prima facie, under Section 467 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. The allegations of forgery of document etc. are made against the Bank Officials and not against the present petitioner.
Although, one of the offences alleged against the petitioner entails punishment for more than 7 years, but learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no such offence is made out against the petitioners and if the commission of that offence is ignored in respect of the petitioner, other offences are covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 273.
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 she 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. It will not be based upon the ipse dixit of the Police Officer. In other words, the petitioner shall be arrested only when the conditions stipulated in Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. are satisfied.
Needless to say that the Investigating Officer of the case shall abide by the aforesaid directions of Hon'ble Apex Court, before affecting the arrest of the petitioner.
Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 30.09.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation.
It will be of no use keeping the present criminal writ petition pending for disposal, inasmuch as, the investigation is going on and ultimately, the investigation will come to its logical conclusion only under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code either by a final report or by a charge sheet. The same is accordingly being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present today.
In the given facts and circumstances of the present writ petition, this Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to the private respondent. Still, liberty is granted to him to move for recall of this Order, if he feels aggrieved with the same.
(U.C.Dhyani, J.) 23.09.2016 Kaushal