Manek Tandon vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the FIR No.0219 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar and also for stay of arrest.

Heard and perused the records.

The FIR in the matter was lodged on 25.04.2019. According to it, the petitioner and others under a conspiracy assured the first informant that he would be provided tender for supplying articles in the Sports and Tourism Department of the Government of Uttarakhand, thereby on different dates Rs.2.45 lakhs were taken from the first informant. The petitioner showed some documents to the first informant to show that they can award the contract in his favour. From the whatsapp of the co-accused a newspaper cutting was also forwarded to the first informant with regard to the award of contract. After a long, when the first informant realized that he was not awarded work order, he enquired and it was revealed that he has been cheated. When questioned, the petitioner and co-accused threatened the first informant to life.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner has no role in the matter. Whatever dealing has been done with the first informant was done by Mr. Saurabh Sharma. No amount was credited in the account of the petitioner. He has no role. He is ready to cooperate with the investigation, therefore, his arrest may be protected.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant would argue that the petitioner is the master mind. Since beginning he has been involved in the matter. His role is as important as that of the person in whose account the money has been credited. It is also informed that Saurabh Sharma has already been arrested.

In the FIR, it is stated that it is the petitioner, who got Saurabh Sharma introduced to the first informant. He has been accompanying Saurabh Sharma all the time. What is his role is a matter for investigation or at trial, as the case may be. Perusal of FIR admittedly reveals commission of cognizable offence. In these proceedings scrutiny of the material cannot be meticulously done. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to quash the FIR and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested in a routine and mechanical manner.

The writ petition is dismissed. However, the Investigating Officer if decides to arrest the petitioner shall follow the law as laid down by the Courts, in this regard as well as the legal provisions and will remind himself that liberty is a precious right which should not be curtailed in a routine manner.