Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Pinki And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 November, 2016
Author: U.C. Dhyani
Bench: U.C. Dhyani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1536 of 2016
Smt. Pinki and another ..............Petitioners
versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .......... Respondents
Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, 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. 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 07.10.2016 registered at Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar, registered vide case crime no. 337 of 2016, under Sections 420, 417, 418, 406, 504 and 506 of IPC.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 2 not to arrest and not to harass the petitioners in case crime no.
337 of 2016, under Sections 420, 417, 418, 406, 504 and 506 of IPC."
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.
23. The allegation against the petitioners is that the sale-deed was to be executed in favour of petitioner no.2, but, instead of executing the same in favour of petitioner no.2, the same was executed in favour of petitioner no.1. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.2 is ready to execute a sale-deed of half portion of the disputed plot in favour of respondent no.3 in order to show his bona fide. According to learned counsel for the petitioners the dispute is purely civil in nature. Present FIR has been lodged against the petitioners in order to pressurize them to settle the dispute amicably.
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 25.11.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation.
37. 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, 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.) 18.11.2016 Kaushal 4