WPCRL/229/2022 of KARAN JINDAL Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 229 of 2022

Karan Jindal

…..Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others

.…Respondents

Present:-

Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Rathore, A.G.A for the State of Uttarakhand.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the FIR No. 0728 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar.

2. video conferencing.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset would submit that there are immense chances of settlement between the parties. Petitioner and petitioner no. 3 had love marriage, they have also sought protection from the Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the case is fully covered by the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another (2014) 8 SCC 273.

5. It is argued that the petition may be disposed of with the direction to Investigating Officer that he shall follow the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) during the course of the investigation of the case.

6. In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued various direction with regard to arrest and remand of an accused. Specific mention is made to the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC in the judgment. Particularly, para 11.1 of the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) provides as hereunder:-

“11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPC”

7. Even otherwise also, arrest is not routine and mechanical act of the IO. The IO is first to satisfy that some offence is being committed and thereafter, to satisfy that arrest is required, for further investigation of the matter. In the cases like instant one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

categorically laid down directions in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

8. This Court has no doubt that the IO shall follow the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while investigating the instant case.

9. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Nahid

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

Vacation Judge

09.02.2022