Sanjay Tanwar And Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this petition is made to the FIR No. 44 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 IPC, Police Station Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the case is fully covered by the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and

another (2014) 8 SCC 273.

It is argued that the petition may be disposed of with the direction to Investigating Officer that he shall follow the directions of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) during the course of the investigation of the case.

In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued various direction with regard to arrest and remand of an accused.

Specific mention is made to the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC in the judgment. Particularly, para 11.1 of the judgment in the case of

Arnesh Kumar (supra) provides as hereunder:-

“11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A IPC is registered but

to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 CrPCâ€​

Even otherwise also, arrest is not a routine and mechanical act of the IO. The IO is first to satisfy that some offence is being committed and

thereafter, to satisfy that arrest is required, for further investigation of the matter. In the cases like instant one, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

categorically laid down directions in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

This Court has no doubt that the IO shall follow the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while investigating the instant case.

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.