Devendra Singh Mehra Alias Daleep Mehra vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 9 March, 2017

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Devendra Singh Mehra Alias Daleep Mehra vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 9 March, 2017

Bench: U.C. Dhyani

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                   NAINITAL

            Criminal Writ Petition No. 312 of 2017

Devendra Singh Mehra @ Daleep Mehra                  ..............Petitioner

                                      versus

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


Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, present for the writ petitioner.
Mr. A. S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Prem Kaushal
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 petitioner prays for the following reliefs, among others:

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned first information report dated 28.02.2017 lodged by the respondent no. 3 at PS Lalkuan, District Nainital which has been registered as FIR No. 44 of 2017 relating to offences punishable under Sections 353,5 04 and 506 of IPC.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 not to take any coercive measures against petitioner pursuant to impugned FIR dated 28.02.2017 lodged by the respondent no.3 at Police Station Lalkuan, District Nainital, which has been registered as FIR No. 44 of 2017, relating to offences punishable under Sections 353,504 and 506 of IPC."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the writ petition.

3. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he made a phone call to the forest employees and extended threat to them when the forest employees detained a Tractor Driver to part the vehicle alongside the road.

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 he has 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 petitioner 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 petitioner.

6. Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 16.03.2017, 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, 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.) 09.03.2017 Kaushal 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court