Uttarakhand High Court
Adeshwati vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 20 September, 2016
Author: U.C.Dhyani
Bench: U.C.Dhyani
WPCRL No. 1261 of 2016
with
WPCRL No. 1262 of 2016
U.C.Dhyani, J.
Since FIR and the factual matrix of the above noted writ petitions is the same, therefore, both the writ petitions are being decided together for the sake of brevity and convenience.
Mr. Sandeep Tandon and Mr. H. C. Pathak, Advocates, present for the writ petitioners. 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 petitioners 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.
Whereas the petitioner of Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1261 of 2016 is a loanee, the petitioner of WPCRL No. 1262 of 2016 is the service provider. Both the counsels for the petitioners submitted that on a bare reading of the FIR, no offence, even prima facie, under Section 467 of IPC is made out against the petitioners. The allegations of forgery of document etc. are made against the Bank Officials and not against the present petitioners. Although, one of the offences alleged against the petitioners entails punishment for more than 7 years, but learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no such offence is made out against the petitioners and if the commission of that offence is ignored in respect of the petitioners, 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 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.
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.
Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 27.09.2016, 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 petitions 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 are 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.) 20.09.2016 Kaushal