Ram Awtar Alias Kallu vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 5 October, 2016

[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Uttarakhand High Court

Ram Awtar Alias Kallu vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 5 October, 2016

Bench: U.C. Dhyani

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                   NAINITAL

           Criminal Writ Petition No. 1357 of 2016

Ram Awatar                                             ..............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 Generals, assisted by Mr. Milind Raj,
and Mr. K.S.Chaduhary, Brief Holders, 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 reliefs, among others:

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the FIR No. 148 of 2016, under Sections 279/304-A of IPC, PS Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, dated 30.05.2016, only against the petitioner (Annexure No. 1).

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondents no. 1 to 4 not to arrest the petitioner in FIR No. 148/2016, under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC, PS Sitarghanj, District Udham Singh Nagar, during the pendency of the present writ petition."

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. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. He has not having any vehicle. No incident took place with his vehicle. He is not aware about the incident.

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 petitioner 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 12.10.2016, 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.) 05.10.2016 Kaushal 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court