WPCRL/429/2015 of Rajeev Kumar Piwhal AND OTHERS Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Criminal No. 429 of 2015

...…………. Petitioners

Rajeev Kumar & others

versus

State of Uttarakhand & others ...………….Respondents

Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. B.S. Koranga, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.S. Gill and Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, Dy. Advocate Generals for the respondent State. Mr. Rajendra Arya, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)

Petitioner no. 1 is husband of respondent no. 3 and petitioner nos. 2 to 8 are relatives / family members of husband of respondent no. 3, who lodged an FIR against the petitioners on 27.03.2015, at police station, Vasant Vihar, District Dehradun for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 504, 498A of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2) Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the ruling of Preeti Gupta and another vs State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667, in which Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

“To find out the truth is Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At time, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to

ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases.”

Hon’ble Apex Court cautioned that the allegations of such complaints are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

3) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents brought on record, as also the grounds taken up in the criminal writ petition as well as the ruling rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above, criminal writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, irrespective of penal sections which have been fastened against the petitioners,wherein it was held:

“7.1. From plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for terms which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. police office before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to present the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such

evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.

7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

7.3 In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further 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.”

4) Petitioner no. 1 is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 22.04.2015 and petitioner nos. 2 to 8 shall contact the I.O. on 29.04.2015, and on such subsequent dates, as may be instructed by him (I.O.) to enable him to complete the investigation in terms of Sub-Section (1) of Sec. 173 Cr.P.C.

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, if any, of the petitioners.

Needless to say that the Investigating

6) Criminal writ petition is summarily disposed of with the directions as above.

Stay application no. 3940 of 2015 also

stands disposed of.

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)

Dt. April 15, 2015. Negi