WPCRL/1003/2016 of Faizan Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS

WPCRL No. 1003 of 2016

U.C.Dhyani, J.

Mr. H. C. Pathak, Advocate, present for the

writ petitioner.

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs, among others:

“(a) writ, order or direction in the nature of

certiorari quashing the FIR dated 31.07.2016 lodged by respondent no.3 which has been registered as Case Crime No. 210 of 2016, under Section 305 of IPC, Police Station Kotwali, Ganganehar, Roorkee, District Haridwar.

(b) writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to not to arrest and harass the petitioner in Case Crime No. 210 of 2016 under Section 305 of IPC, Police Station Kotwali, Gangnehar, Roorkee, District Haridwar.”

An FIR was lodged against the petitioner

for the offence punishable under Section 305 IPC.

Thereafter, on 04.06.2016, at about 3-4 p.m., informant/reporter’s sister, who was minor, jumped into Gangnehar. Her body was found on 07.06.2016. An inquest was conducted by the Police. She was cremated after the postmortem.

On 04.06.2016, the reporter saw his sister

coming out of hotel with Faizan (petitioner). The reporter counseled his sister. But, even then, he took her to the bank of the canal, where an altercation took place between them. She jumped into Gangnehar only on account of Faizan.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed

Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahendra Singh and another vs. State of M.P., reported in 1995 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 731, and Netai Dutta vs. State of W.B.,reported in (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 659, and Sohan Raj Sharma vs. State of Haryana 2008, AIR SCW 3202,wherein it was held that mere cruel or insulting behaviour cannot be taken to be an act of abetting suicide and the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, in such cases, are not made out.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even if the entire facts of the first information report be conceded to be true, no offence as such against the petitioner is made out.

Although, the offence complained of against

the petitioner is not covered by Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 273, but according to the decision given by Hon’ble Apex Court, prima facie, on the basis of such allegation, no offence under Section 305 IPC is made out.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the investigation of the case is going on.

Considering the facts of the case and the grounds taken up in the writ petition, the petitioner is directed to contact the investigating officer of the case on 18[th] August, 2016 and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by the investigating officer of the case.

It is provided, as an interim measure, that

during the course of interrogation and investigation, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner, provided he cooperates with the investigating agency.

When the investigation of the case will be conducted, it will either culminate into filing of 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.

Since present writ petition is being disposed

of without issuing notice to respondent no. 3, therefore, respondent no. 3 is granted liberty to move for recall of this order, if she feels aggrieved with the same.

[Stay application no. 8085 of 2016 also

stands disposed of.][

(U.C.Dhyani, J.)

08.08.2016

Kaushal