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
9 paragraphs · 310 wordsMr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate present for the petitioners.
Mr. R.K. Shah, Deputy Advocate General assisted by Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder present for the State/respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. J.S. Virk, Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocates present for the complainant/respondent no. 3.
A first information report has been lodged by respondent no. 3 against the petitioners which has been registered as Case Crime No.85 of 2017 under Sections 420 / 467 / 468 / 471 / 120B / 506 of IPC, at Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have approached this Court for relief.
Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the offence under Section 467 of IPC is not made out against the petitioners.
At this stage, no interference is presently called for by this Court in the matter.
Considering the nature of offence, 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 is concerned, the same shall be done only under the procedure framed under Section 41 CrPC and Section 41A CrPC as well as 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, where strict guidelines have been given by the Hon''ble Apex Court regarding arrest and investigation in such matters.
It is made clear that this order shall remain operative till the filing of the charge-sheet.
It is, however, made clear that if the Investigating Officer feels that offence under Section 467 of IPC is made out against the petitioners, he would be at liberty to bring this fact before this Court.