Uttarakhand High Court
Vipin Chaudhary vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 1 October, 2016
Author: U.C. Dhyani
Bench: U.C. Dhyani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1343 of 2016
Vipin Chaudhary ....... Petitioner
versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ....... Respondents
Mr. J.S. Virk, Advocate, present for the writ petitioner.
Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, A.G.A. present for the State / respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Nalin Saun, Advocate present
for respondent no. 3.
U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)
By means of present criminal writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs, among others:
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the FIR dated 07.09.2016, lodged by respondent no. 3, which has been registered as case crime no. 272 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 not to arrest and harass the petitioner in case crime no.
272 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
2) Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents brought on record.
23) An FIR was lodged by the complainant / respondent no. 3 against the petitioner and 36 other accused persons, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, at police station, Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
4) It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a loanee. It is also submitted that on a bare reading of the FIR, no offence, even prima facie, under Section 467 IPC is made out against the petitioner. The allegation of forgery of document etc. are made against the bank officials and not against the present petitioner.
5) Although, one of the offences alleged against the petitioner entail punishment for more than seven 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 Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases
273.
6) 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 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 3 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.
7) 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.
8) Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 08.10.2016, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation.
9) 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. The same is accordingly being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present today.
(Stay application no. 10300 of 2016 also stands disposed of).
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) Dt. October 01, 2016.
Negi 5 6