Uttarakhand High Court
Sajid And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 21 October, 2016
Author: U.C. Dhyani
Bench: U.C. Dhyani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1424 of 2016
Sajid and four others ..............Petitioner
versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .......... Respondents
Mr. Shashikant Shandilya, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Abhishek Verma,
Advocate, present for the writ petitioners.
Mr. A. S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate Generals, assisted by Milind Raj and
Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Brief Holders, present for the State/respondents no. 1 & 2.
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)
By means of present writ petition, the petitioners pray for the following reliefs, among others:
" (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 09.10.2016 registered as FIR No. 387 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 452, 354, 511, 504 and 506 of IPC at ROP Bansfodan, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, lodged by respondent no.3 as against the petitioner.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the FIR dated 09.10.2016, registered as FIR No. 387 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 452, 354, 511, 504 and 506 of IPC at ROP Bansfodan, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, lodged by respondent no.3. "2
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the writ petition.
3. It is a cross version. Both the FIRs have been lodged on behalf of members of both the sides. Learned Deputy Advocate General stated that 14 persons have sustained injuries and two persons are admitted in Sushila Tiwari Medical College, Haldwani.
4. In view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 273, the petitioners should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of information and material collected, that they have 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 petitioners 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.
5. 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 petitioners.
6. Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 28.10.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation.
7. When the investigation of the case will be conducted, it will either culminate into filing of the charge-sheet or 3 submission of final report. This Court has no occasion to interfere in the investigation in between.
8. Therefore, it will be of no use keeping the present criminal writ petition pending. Criminal Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of at the admission stage itself, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, who are present.
9. 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.
10. Learned Deputy Advocate General may also move for recall of this Order if the injuries are found to be grievous and the FIR is converted into Sections 308 or 307 of IPC.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) 21.10.2016 Kaushal 4