Akram And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. dated 11.05.2019 registered as Case Crime No.312 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Laksar District Haridwar and for stay of arrest.

Heard and perused the records.

According to the F.I.R. on 06.05.2019 at 05:00 p.m. when the first informant was cultivating in his field, the petitioners abused him threatened him to life. They wanted him to withdraw the application, which the first informant had given at the police station. When the first informant denied to withdraw the application, he was assaulted with knife, kicks and fists and even tooth of the first informant was broken and it started bleeding. The first informant cried; people came and saved him.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the F.I.R. is delayed and it is false, because on 05.05.2019 the first informant, who is respondent no.3 had assaulted the family members of the petitioner no.1 Akram, which was reported on 19.05.2019 at Police Station Laksar by petitioner no.1; reference has been made to the F.I.R. lodged by petitioner no.1 Akram against respondent no.3 and others but fact remains that the F.I.R. of the petitioner no.1 was lodged on 19.05.2019 and F.I.R. in the instant case was lodged by respondent no.3 on 11.05.2019 about the incident, which allegedly occurred on 06.05.2019. Petitioners apprehend that they may be arrested without following the procedural guidelines as laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014)8 SCC 27, therefore, they may be protected from arrest.

The perusal of the F.I.R discloses commission of cognizable offence. Its truthfulness is a matter for investigation or at trial, as the case may be. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the case and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), while interpreting and making reference to the various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pertaining to arrest and production of the accused before the Magistrate, the Hon'ble Court observed as under:-

"11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically......."

Thereafter, from paragraph no.11.2 to 11.8, Hon'ble Court, in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) issued directions to the Police Officers authorized to make arrest as well as to the Magistrate authorized to order of detention of the accused.

Needless to say, Investigating Officer shall abide by the directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) before effecting arrest of the petitioner. The Senior Superintendent of Police, District Uttarkashi shall ensure it.

Accordingly, with the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.