Sumit Tanwar 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 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition

act, 1961, Police Station Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Investigating Officer (for short, “IOâ€) may be directed to follow the

directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another (2014) 8 SCC 273.

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

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