Uttarakhand High Court
Ramesh Kumar Mandal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 26 September, 2016
Author: U.C. Dhyani
Bench: U.C. Dhyani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1225 of 2016
Ramesh Kumar Mandal ..............Petitioner
versus
State of Uttarakhand and others .......... Respondents
Mr. S.K.Mandal, Advocate, present for the writ petitioner.
Mr. A. S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Milind
Raj, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondents no. 1 to 4.
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner prays for the following relief, among others:
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR No. 236 of 2016, under Sections 420,467 and 468 of IPC, PS Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar (contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition).
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2, 3 & 4 not to arrest the petitioner in FIR No. 236 of 2016, under Sections 420,467 and 468 of IPC, PS Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, during the proper and appropriate investigation."
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 petitioner is that he passed Adhikari Pariksha from Gurukul Viswavidhyaya, Vrindavan in the year 2003, which was not equivalent to High School 2 Examination of U. P. Board /Uttarakhand Board and was a fake certificate.
4. The validity of certificate of Adhikari Pariksha from Gurukul Viswavidhyalya, Vrindavan was decided by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in WPSB No. 73 of 2014 as follows:
"In view of above discussion, we answer the question formulated by learned Single Judge in the following manner:-
The certificate of Adhikari Pariksha issued by Gurukul Vishwavidhyala Vrindavan, Mathura prior to 2007, would be treated as equivalent to High School Examination of U. P. Board and Uttarakhand Board till 27.08.2007."
5. Earlier, the Division Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court answered the reference in the following manner:
"In view of the discussion made above, we answer the reference thus:
a) Adhikari Pariksha Certificate issued by the Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Vrindavan, Mathura, up to the year 2008, i.e., till it was recognized by the U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education as equivalent to High School, obtained with English as one of the subject, and passed in one year, is valid qualification equivalent to High School, regardless of Gurukul having been declared a fake University by UGC.
(b) The decision of the division bench in Special Appeal no. 1990 of 2011 dated 13.10.2011 (Indrawati Devi v. State of U.P. and others), which holds that "Adhikari Pariksha" certificate obtained from Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Virndavan, Mathura cannot be held to be a valid degree, does not lay down the correct law.
Let the papers of this writ petition be placed before the appropriate Court for further orders."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a bare reading of the FIR, no offence, even prima facie, under Section 467 of IPC is made out against the petitioner.
37. Although, one of the offences alleged against the petitioner entails punishment for more than 7 years, but learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no such offence is made out against the petitioner and if the commission of that offence is ignored in respect of the petitioner, 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.
9. It is provided that the petitioner should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of information and material collected, that she 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.
9. 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.
10. Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 03.10.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation.
11. It will be of no use keeping the present criminal writ petition 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.
4The same is accordingly being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present today.
12. 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.) 26.09.2016 Kaushal 5