Pooja Bedi And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned FIR No.175

of 2020 dated 18.10.2020, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of IPC and under Sections 4/5 of Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act,

1978, registered at P.S. Dalanwala, District Dehradun, and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in

connection with the impugned FIR.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Facts necessary for disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are as hereunder:-

According to the FIR, which has been lodged by respondent no.3, the petitioners persuaded the informant to invest in their kitty business. The

informant deposited Rs.8.87 lakhs to the petitioners. But after maturity date, the money was not refunded to the informant. Whenever the informant

approached the petitioners, on one pretext or other they avoided making the payment and subsequently, they under a design took back the kitty

committee cards from the informant and gave her cheque of Rs.7.40 lakhs. The cheque, when presented, was dishonoured. Subsequently, there are

allegations that the informant was threatened to life also.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the informant has alternate remedy under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1888 and dispute is civil in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners also apprehends that the petitioners may be arrested in a routine and mechanical

manner.

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of offences, in such matter interference is not

warranted. In the instant case the FIR discloses commission of offences. What is its truthfulness, credibility or the reliability, it is subject which falls

for consideration during investigation. Therefore, this Court of the view that there is no reason to make any interference and the present petition

deserves to be dismissed.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a direction may be issued that the petitioners should not be arrested in a routine and

mechanical manner.

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 is dismissed.