WPCRL/1735/2016 of Rakesh Verma Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND ATNAINITAL

Criminal Writ Petition No. 1735 of 2016

Rakesh Verma

....….……Petitioner

versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents

Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate, present for the writ petitioner.

Mr. A. S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Milind Raj and Mr. K.S.Chaudhary, Brief Holders, present for the State/respondents no. 1 & 2.

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

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

“Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned FIR dated 07.12.2016 (Annexure No.1) in Case Crime No. 178 of 2016, under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC, lodged at Police Station Prem Nagar, District Dehradun, against the petitioner.”

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 on the basis of forged agreement of sale, respondent no.3 wants to enforce the same to grab the plot.

4. In view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported 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.

4. 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.shall abide by the aforesaid directions of Hon’ble Apex Court, before affecting the arrest of the petitioner.

5. Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 05.01.2017, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation. the case on 05.01.2017, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation.

6. 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. 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.

7. 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. 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.

8. 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 her to petition, this Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to the private respondent. Still, liberty is granted to her to

move for recall of this Order, if she feels aggrieved with the same.

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)29.12.2016

Kaushal