Vishal Verma @ Vishal Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. dated 17.03.2019 registered as F.I.R. No. 98 of 2019 under Sections 420 and 120-B of I.P.C, registered at Police Station - Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

According to the First Information Report, having been suggested by some friend, the first informant contacted the petitioner along with a Rajesh Singh to invest some money in Lift India Company. Rajesh Singh assured the first informant of lucrative returns and persuaded the petitioner to invest the money. The first informant handed over a cheque of Rs. 3 Lakhs to the co-accused. He was given ten cheques. One cheque was honoured, but subsequently, the cheques were dishonoured and when contacted, the bank informed that Rajesh Singh had closed his account. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner and co-accused cheated money from other persons in the same manner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that petitioner has not induced the first informant to deliver the money; petitioner has not received any money; he has not been given any amount and he has simply been named. Petitioner apprehends that he might be arrested in a routine manner.

F.I.R. categorically states that when suggested, the first informant contacted the petitioner and one more person Rajesh Singh of Lift India Company. The role of both of them will definitely be examined during investigation. At this stage, this Court cannot express any opinion as to what is the role of each of the accused.

A bare perusal of the F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offences. What is the truthfulness of this F.I.R.? It is a matter to be tested during investigation or at trial, as the case may be. The Court cannot go deep into meticulous scrutiny of the case. Factual aspects cannot be scrutinized in this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that Investigating Officer may arrest the petitioners without following the guidelines, laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273. It is argued that either the arrest of the petitioner may be stayed or in any case, the Police may be directed not to arrest petitioner without following the guidelines laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), while interpreting and making reference to the various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pertaining to arrest and production of the accused before the Magistrate, the Hon'ble Court observed as under:-

"11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically............"

Thereafter, from paragraph no. 11.2 to 11.8, Hon'ble Court, in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) issued directions to the Police Officers authorized to make arrest as well as to the Magistrate authorized to order of detention of the accused.

Needless to say, Investigating Officer shall abide by the directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) before effecting arrest of the petitioner. The Senior Superintendent of Police, District - Dehradun shall ensure it.

Accordingly, with above observations, the writ petition stands is dismissed.

Stay application (CLMA No.5175/19) also stands disposed of.