Mohini Devi And Others ....... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 15 December, 2018

[Cites 4, Cited by 2]

Uttarakhand High Court

Mohini Devi And Others ....... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 15 December, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 UTR 917

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                     NAINITAL

              Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2276 of 2018

Mohini Devi and Others                                              ....... Petitioners

                                         Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others                                     ....Respondents

Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. alongwith Mr. Balvinder Singh, Brief Holder for the State
of Uttarakhand.



Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief(s):-

"(i) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records and quashing the first information report dated 24.11.2018 registered as F.I.R.

No.0037 of 2018 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under sections 323, 342, 498-A, 504, 506 and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station - Lohaghat, District

- Champawat.

(ii) Issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondent no.2 and 3 not to arrest to the petitioners in pursuant of the first information report dated 24.11.2018 registered as F.I.R. No. 0037 of 2018 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under sections 323, 342, 498-A, 504, 506 and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station - Lohaghat, District - Champawat."

2. The F.I.R. in question has been lodged with the allegation that after marriage, the first informant Sarita Pandey was subjected to harassment and cruelty for the want of dowry.

3. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations in the F.I.R. are without any basis. F.I.R. may not be quashed merely on the basis of statement given by the persons, who are named as an accused in the case.

4. A bare perusal of the first information report in the instant case discloses commission of cognizable offence. Whether the allegations, as stated in the first information report, are true or not, is a matter of investigation, which is still pending. Hence, at this stage, there is no ground, as such, for quashing the first information report. The petition, to that extent, deserves to be dismissed.

5. Another prayer is for stay of the arrest in pursuance of the first information report. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, arrest of a person involved in any case, which is pending investigation, may not be stayed as a routine.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that Investigating Officer may arrest the petitioners without following the guidelines, laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and in that eventuality, the loss which might be caused to the petitioner would be irreparable. Loss of the honour and dignity, due to wrongful arrest, may not be restored. Therefore, it is argued that either the arrest of the petitioners may be stayed or in any case, the Police may be directed not to arrest petitioners without following the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

7. 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............"

8. 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 the detention of the accused.

9. Needless to say, Investigating Officer shall abide by the directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) before effecting arrest of the petitioners. The Senior Superintendent of Police, District - Champawat shall ensure it.

10. Accordingly, with above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

11. Stay application (CLMA No.19372/18) also stands disposed of.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 15.12.2018 Ujjwal

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court