Kunwarpal @ Kanwarpal And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

In the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 541 of 2020, under Sections 454, 380,

323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

According to the FIR, on 04.08.2020 in the afternoon at about 1:00, the petitioners forcefully entered the shop of the informant and started taking

away the articles from the shop. A person named Anil raised alarm. Thereafter, when the informant stopped the petitioners, he was beaten

indiscriminately. People saved him. There are other averments as well in the FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it is a false case; the offences are punishable for imprisonment for less than seven years and

the case is covered by the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

On behalf of respondent no.3, who is informant, it is argued that the informant was beaten seriously; his nasal bone is fractured; in the past,

according to learned counsel for respondent no.3, on 05.12.2018, the father of the informant was beaten by the petitioners and a case under section

326 IPC is pending.

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences. Parties were in dispute

earlier with regard to a shop, which according to the petitioners, were leased out the sister of respondent no.3. Some documents have been placed on

record to exhibit it. Be it as it may, as stated, FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences. The credibility and trustworthiness of these allegations

is subject to scrutiny during investigation or at the trial, as the case may be. Therefore, no interference, as such, is warranted in this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners apprehend that they may be arrested in a very routine and mechanical manner

by the Investigating Officer without ascertaining their role.

Needless to say, arrest is not a mechanical act of the Investigating Officer. First and foremost, he has to ascertain the complicity of a person in the

offence and thereafter, to weigh in his mind the need for arresting. This Court has no doubt that the Investigating Officer, in the instant case, shall also

follow the law on the subject of arrest, if any occasion to arrest arises in the instant case.

With the above observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.