Uttarakhand High Court
Krishna Kant Sharma Alias Krishan Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 7 September, 2016
Author: U.C.Dhyani
Bench: U.C.Dhyani
WPCRL No. 1200 of 2016 U.C.Dhyani, J.
Mr. K. S. Verma, Advocate, present for the writ petitioner.
Mr. A. S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Milind Raj and Mr. V. S. Rathour, Brief Holders, present for the State/respondents no. 1 & 2.
An FIR has been lodged against the petitioner registered as Case Crime No. 260 of 2016, for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC, at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Dehradun.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner learned counsel for the State and perused the documents brought on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a certificate on 04.09.2016 issued by Jailor, District Jail, Dehradun, to say that on 21.08.2016, the petitioner was detained in the said jail in connection with the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was released on 22.08.2016. Although, the offence is serious one, inasmuch as, the complaint has been lodged by the Clerk of 1st Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, but, the fact remains that offence punishable under Section 379 IPC entails the punishment, which is less than 7 years.
Learned Deputy Advocate General contested the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner.
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.
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.
Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 14.09.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation.
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.
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.
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.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner today itself on payment of usual charges.
(U.C.Dhyani, J.) 07.09.2016 Kaushal