Arrest should only be made if necessary for proper investigation or to prevent the accused from causing evidence to disappear, as per the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar.

U.C. Dhyani, J.

By means of present criminal writ petition, the petitioners seek following reliefs, among others:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report lodged by respondent no. 2 with respondent no. 1 being the crime no. 44/2016 under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at P.S. Muni Ki Reti, Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal (Annexure 1).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 not to arrest the petitioners in connection with the impugned FIR (Anneuxre 1).

2. An FIR was lodged against six named accused, including the petitioners, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC on 22.06.2016 in relation to an incident which occurred on 07.01.2014.

3. A bare perusal of FIR will indicate that the impugned allegations have been levelled against Sanjay Seth, Proprietor of M/s Touch Company (non-petitioner). By way of passing reference, it is alleged in the FIR that the petitioners, who are respectively wife, father and brother of Sanjay Seth, are also conspirators in the said incident.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that although one of the offence alleged against the petitioners entails a punishment of more than seven years, but no such offence is made out against the petitioners and if the commission of that offence is ignored in respect of the petitioners, other offences are covered by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

5. Considering the facts of the case, it will be of no use keeping the present criminal writ petition pending for disposal, inasmuch as, the investigation is going on and ultimately, the investigation will come to its logical conclusion only under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code either by a final report or by a charge-sheet. The same is, accordingly, being disposed of in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein it was held as below:

“7.1. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a terms which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police office before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to present the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.

7.2. The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

7.3 In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer