Naval Kishore And AnotherVs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing impugned F.I.R. No.84 of 2019, under Section 420 IPC and Section 3 of Price Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, P.S. Transit Camp, District Udham Singh Nagar and also for stay of arrest.

Heard and perused the records.

According to the F.I.R., which was lodged on 15.04.2019, petitioners and co-accused contacted the first informant to associate him with the company named GL Shine and also induced him to invest money in the company assuring huge returns. The first informant invested Rs.30,000/-but no return was given to the first informant. According to the F.I.R., some other persons have also invested money in the company. The company is not authorized to take money for such schemes as Reserve Bank of India has not been informed by the petitioners and others.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the petitioners are not Directors of the company; the petitioners themselves have invested money in the company and they have also not received any return; they have also invested money and got to assure returns in terms of cloth etc.

In the F.I.R. the petitioners are named specifically as leaders of the company. In what capacity they acted in such a manner is yet to be ascertained. Perusal of the F.I.R. reveals commission of cognizable offence. Its truthfulness is a matter for investigation or at trial, as the case may be. Any examination of the matter at this stage is not accepted in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no interference is warranted and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that the petitioners apprehend that they may be arrested in a routine and mechanical manner without ascertaining the role of the petitioners and without following guidelines in this regard. Reference has been made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014)8 SCC 27, therefore, they may be protected from arrest.

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 Udham Singh Nagar shall ensure it.

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