WPCRL/654/2016 of Smt. Veermati Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS

WPCRL No. 654 of 2016 U.C.Dhyani, J.

Mr. Sachin Panwar, Advocate, present for the

writ petitioner.

Mr. V. K. Jamini, Dy. Advocate General along with Mr. V. S. Mehra, Brief Holder present for the State/ respondent.

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner

prays for the following reliefs, among others:

“ (a) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 24.4.2016 registered as Crime No. 67 of 2016 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, PS Kankhal District Haridwar.

(b) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in Crime No. 67 of 2016 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 506 IPC, PS Kankhal District Haridwar till the pendency of present petition.”

When the writ petition was taken up for

admission, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.06.2016 granted interim protection from arrest to the accused-petitioner. The learned Coordinate Bench observed as follows:

“As an interim measure, it is provided that

though the investigation may go on but petitioner shall not be arrested nor any coercive measures shall be taken against her in pursuance of FIR in question, until further orders of this Court, provided petitioner cooperates in the investigation.”

The allegation against the petitioner is that the

land belonging to the reporter has been sold twice.

It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence punishable under Section 467 of IPC as such is prime facie made out on bare reading of the first information report.

Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the investigation is going on.

Although, of the offences alleged against the petitioner entail punishment for more than 7 years, but learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no such offence is made out against the petitioners and if the commission of that offence is ignored in respect of the petitioner, other offences are covered by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 273.

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 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 06.12.2016, 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.

Writ petition is thus disposed of with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present today.

Balwant

(U.C.Dhyani, J.)

29.11.2016