Prem Shankar Mishra and another vs State of Uttarakhand and others

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs, among others:

"(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report no. 11 of 2017, case crime no. 13 of 2017, under Sections 406, 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC at Police Station Laxmanjhula, Sub District Kotdwara, District Pauri Garhwal (annexure-17). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest and harass the petitioners in connection with impugned first information report no. 11 of 2017 case crime no. 13 of 2017, under Sections 406, 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC at Police Station Laxmanjhula, Sub District Kotdwara, District Pauri Garhwal."

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed such prayer of the petitioners by arguing that prima facie Section 467 IPC is not made out against the applicant and therefore the decision of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 273 will not be applicable to the facts of the present case.

Learned counsel for the applicants, on the other hand, submitted that the complainant has abused the process of law by filing such first information report against the applicant. Various documents have been filed by both the sides in support of his respective submissions.

Considering the facts of the case, this Court proposes to pass the following order, in the interest of justice.

It is provided that the petitioners should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of the information and material collected, that they have committed an offence. Before making arrest, the Investigating Officer is required to satisfy himself that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged by Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. It will not be based upon the ipse dixit of the Police Officer. In other words, the petitioners shall be arrested only when the conditions stipulated in Sub- Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. are satisfied.

Needless to say that the Investigating Officer of the case shall abide by the aforesaid directions of Hon''ble Apex Court, before affecting the arrest, if any, of the petitioners.

Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 15.06.2017, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigations.

When the investigation of the case will be conducted, it will either culminate into filing of the charge-sheet or submission of final report. This Court has no occasion to interfere in the investigation in between.

Therefore, it will be of no use keeping the present criminal writ petition pending. Criminal Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of at the admission stage itself, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.