Sumit vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of an FIR No. 222 of 2020, under Sections 147, 149, 188, 269, 270, 322, 353, 505 and 506

IPC and Section 56 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (for short “the Actâ€​) Police Station I.T.I, District Udham Singh Nagar.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

According to the FIR, on 28.02.2020, the informant who was enrolled in PRD was on duty at a border. At about 3:30 PM, on that date, he

intercepted a motorcycle driven by co-accussed, Vicky, and stopped him to move ahead in view of Covid-19 directions. At this, co-accused Vicky

misbehaved and abused the informant and slapped him. Thereafter, some other persons, joined him and they took co-accused Vicky away from the

spot. According to the FIR, after a while, the co-accused Vicky alongwith some 20-25 persons including the petitioner again came at the barrier and

started beating the informant. When other Police Constables tried to intervene, they were also beaten. FIR states that the informant and others

sustained injuries.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that no specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner; all the offences are punishable

with imprisonment of three years or less, triable by Magistrate and the petitioner is named on the basis of hearsay statement.

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Factual aspects cannot at all be examined generally in such petitions. There are

averments of beating, assaulting a person on duty at a barrier and FIR states that they sustained injuries, as well. It is not hearsay; the FIR records

that informant and others identified the petitioner. What is his role and to what extent is he involved in the crime, is a matter for investigation.

Therefore, no interference is warranted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then argues that this case is covered by the principles of law as laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs.

State of Bihar and another (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein para no.11 of it, the Hon’ble Court issued certain directions with regard to arrest.

Needless to say, arrest is definitely not a routine and mechanical act to be exercised by an Investigating Officer. It is something, which curtails a

person’s liberty and personal freedom of a man. There are various guidelines with regard to exercise of this right. This Court has no doubt that the

Investigating Officer shall follow all the guidelines with regard to arrest, if occasion arises.

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.