Mukul Agrawal & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the first information report no.0075 of 2024 dated 01.06.2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 & 506 IPC registered with Police Station Selakui, District Dehradun.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

There is no need to pass any order in respect of petitioner no.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the offences alleged against the petitioners carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment and, therefore, by virtue of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, the petitioners should have been served with a notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. (new Section 35(3) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) (hereinafter referred to B.N.S.S). It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that dispute alleged against the petitioners is of civil nature and, therefore, the petitioners should be protected by this Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents State on instructions submitted that notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. has already been served upon petitioner no.1 but there is no such instructions with regard to petitioner no.2.

In view of the present situation, as culled out from the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents State, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Officer that he shall serve petitioner no.2 with notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. (under Section 35(3) of B.N.S.S., 2023) as per the mandate of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

Since petitioner no.1 is already served with aforesaid notice, there is no need to pass any order for petitioner no.1.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.