Shakun Batra vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

Instant writ petition has been filed for quashing of an FIR No.62 of 2021, under Sections 406 and 506 of IPC, Police Station Kotwali Jawalapur,

District Haridwar and also seeking directions that the petitioner may also not be arrested, pursuant to this FIR.

FIR in the instant case was lodged by respondent no.3 on 4.02.2021, under Sections 406 and 506 of IPC, at Police Station Kotwali Jawalapur,

District Haridwar. The petitioner is a producer in film city Mumbai, who also runs a firm. The petitioner hatched a conspiracy by associating co-

accused, namely, Darshan Batra and V. Rishi Batra inducing the informant to invest Rs. Ninety Lakh for the purpose of producing a film. It was in

the year 2013, when petitioner was to produce a film, the petitioner assured the informant that he would return three times the money invested by the

informant. Believing the petitioner, the informant gave Rs. Twenty Two Lakh in cash to the petitioner and deposited Rs.Sixty Eight Lakh in the

account of Darshan Batra on 23.07.2014. This money was also collected by the petitioner. According to the FIR, thereafter the petitioner did not

return the money, he avoided making payment. In fact, in the year 2019 at the behest of the petitioner, the informant and his son were attacked, in

which, the driver of the informant and his son sustained injuries. There are other details in the FIR as well.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a matter of land dealing between the parents of the petitioner and the informant as the

advance payment of money was given by the informant but he did not turn-up for execution of the deed and no case is made out.

Learned State Counsel would submit that FIR discloses commission of offence as Rs. Sixty Eight Lakh has been transferred in the account of

mother of the petitioner and no interference is being called for.

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case, FIR discloses commission of offence, normally no interference is

warranted. At the time of the argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Rs. Sixty Eight Lakh was deposited in the account of the

mother of the petitioner for purchasing property of the informant, but he did not turn-up for execution of the sale deed. On the other hand, in FIR it is

categorically stated that it is the petitioner who along with his parents hatched conspiracy and induced the informant to cough-up Rs. Ninety Lakh. Rs.

Twenty Two Lakh, according to the FIR, was paid in cash and Rs. Sixty Eight through cheque.

What is the reliability, credibility and trustworthiness of the FIR, it definitely falls for scrutiny during investigation. At this stage, this Court could not

record any finding on this aspect. As stated, FIR discloses commission of offence. Therefore, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the writ

petition.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested in a routine and mechanical

manner and therefore, directions may be issued in this regard.

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 arrest. 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 writ petition stands dismissed.