WPCRL/270/2022 of MOHIT Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Court: Uttarakhand High Court
Decision date: 2022-10-18
Bench: BHARAT SINGH, CHAMOLI, DHARAM SINGH, DISTRICT CHAMOLI
Case number: 270 of 2022

Parties

SL. NoDateOffice Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with SignaturesCOURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS (PETITIONER)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (RESPONDENT)

Cites (0 resolved of 2 detected)

2 case citations detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.

Statutes cited (5)

constitution of india, article-226 (1950)
indian penal code (1860)
indian penal code (1860)
code of criminal procedure (1973)
constitution of india (1950)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Conclusion

|**SL.** **No**|**Date**|**Office Notes, reports,** **orders or proceedings or** **directions and Registrar’s** **order with Signatures**||**COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|||||WPCRL No.270 of 2022 **Hon’ble R.C. Khulbe, J.** Mr. Gopal K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned B.H. for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of present writ petition, petitioners seek to quash impugned FIR/Case Crime No.511 of 2021, under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Kashipur, District U.S. Nagar. The writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. It is submitted that petitioner no.1 is the husband while nos.2 is mother in law and no.3 is the brother in law of respondent no.3; it is purely matrimonial dispute between the parties; moreover there are chances of compromise between the parties; and lastly, the matter is covered by the dictum of Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. 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 , the petitioners should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe on the basis of information and material collected, that they have committed the 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_ipsi dixit_of the Police Officer. In other words, the petitioners 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. Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer and also to cooperate with the investigating agency. Criminal writ petition is summarily disposed of with the direction as above. All pending applications also stand disposed of. **(R.C. Khulbe, J.)** **18.02.2022** Rdang|