AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 238 wordsMr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, present for the petitioners.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. B.S. Thind, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
The First Information Report has been lodged by respondent No. 3, which has been registered as Case Crime No.101 of 2017, under Sections 354 / 323 / 504 of IPC, at Police Station- Buggawala, District- Haridwar implicating the present petitioners. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have approached this Court for relief.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of offence and since the maximum punishment in these offences is seven years or less, a limited interference is called for in the matter.
The writ petition stands disposed with the direction to the police authorities to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law, subject to the full cooperation of the petitioners in the investigation, but as far as the arrest of the petitioners are concerned, the same may be done only under the parameters as framed under Section 41 and Section 41A of Cr.P.C. as well as following the guidelines given by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
It is further made clear that this order shall remain operative till the filing of charge sheet, in case of that event.