Sandeep Singh Rawat 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 impugned F.I.R No.0013 of 2019 under Section 420 of IPC at Police Station Purola, District Uttarkashi and also for stay of arrest of the petitioner.

Heard and perused the records.

According to the F.I.R, the petitioner and co-accused induced the first informant to invest in their two companies. The first informant invested huge amount, the details have been given in the F.I.R. In return, after some time, a cheque of Rs.99,72,717/-was given to the first informant, but it was not honoured. When requested the father of the petitioner and co-accused assured that all the amount would be paid. Cheques were again given, which were also not honoured.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the amount has not been deposited in the account of the petitioner. It is a case of simpliciter dishonour of cheque, which attracts the provision of Section 311 of the Act. It is argued that there is no cheating as such.

Learned counsel for the first informant would argue that it is not a single case. The petitioner and other co-accused have committed such offence at other place also and there is another F.I.R lodged at Raiwala, District Dehradun.

Perusal of the F.I.R reveals that it is not a simple case of dishonour of cheque. There is chronology of events, which is narrated in the F.I.R and it is stated that the first informant was induced to deliver money on the pretext of high returns and when the first informant invested huge amount, a cheque was given in return, which was dishonoured. The F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence. What is the role of petitioner and other co-accused or its truthfulness has to be tested by the investigating officer or at the trial, as the case may be. These factual aspects may be examined under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner apprehends that petitioner may be arrested in a routine and mechanical manner without following the guidelines as laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014)8 SCC 27, therefore, he 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 Uttarkashi shall ensure it.

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