Uttarakhand High Court
Rajendra Kumar Maheshwari vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 14 January, 2016
Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia
Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 58 of 2016
Rajendra Kumar Maheshwari .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others .......Respondents
Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
1. Mr. P.C. Pethshali, Advocate present for the petitioner.
2. Mr. K.S. Rautela, Government Advocate, present for the State/respondent nos.1 & 2.
3. This Court finds that the matter is urgent, hence heard on admission.
4. The First Information Report has been lodged by respondent no. 3, which has been registered as Crime/FIR No. 06 of 2016, under Sections 420/467/468 & 471 of IPC, at Police Station ITI, District-Udham Singh Nagar against the present petitioner.
5. The petitioner works in a Post Office. There are allegations of cheating against the present petitioner. Primarily, the allegation against the petitioner is that in collision with one Smt. Janki Upreti and other co-accused committed embezzlement of amount which he has to deposit in the Post Office concerned.
6. This is also prima facie opinion of this Court that though the First Information Report has also been registered under Sections 467/468 & 471 of IPC as well, presently from the averments of the First Information Report, the offences against the above provisions are not made out against the present petitioner. This, however, only a prima facie opinion of this Court and it will all depend on further investigation.
7. Considering the nature of offence and since the maximum punishment for offence under Section 420 of IPC is seven years, a limited interference is called for in the matter.
2Another petition of the other co-accused has also been disposed of by this Court today itself.
8. The writ petition stands disposed with the direction to the police authorities to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law but as far as the arrest of the petitioner is concerned the same may be done only under the parameters as framed under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. read with the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, are complied with, inter alia, by giving due notice and reasons if the arrest is required.
9. It is made clear that this order shall remain operative till the filing of charge sheet.
10. Urgency application (IA No.229 of 2016) stands disposed.
11. Stay application (CLMA No.512 of 2016) stands disposed.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Vacation Judge 14.01.2016 Nitesh