Rizwan And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 8 December, 2016

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Rizwan And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 8 December, 2016

Bench: U.C. Dhyani

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                   NAINITAL

           Criminal Writ Petition No. 1629 of 2016

Rizwan and four others                              ..............Petitioners


                                   versus

State of Uttarakhand and others                     .......... Respondents




Mr. Rajendra Singh Azad, Advocate, present for the writ petitioners.
Mr. A. S. Gill and Mr. M. A. Khan, learned Deputy Advocate Generals, assisted
by Mr. Milind Raj and Mr. K.S.Chaudhary, 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) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR of Case Crime No. 202 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 427, 504, 506 and 452 of IPC, Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar (Annexure No.1) to this writ petition..

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 & 2 not to harass the petitioners in view of the impugned FIR till filing of the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. "

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 the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that all the offences complained of against the petitioners except under Section 452 IPC, are bailable offences in nature and the FIR has been lodged after four months.

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. Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 15.12.2016, 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 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, 3 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.

(U.C. Dhyani, J.) 08.12.2016 Kaushal 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court