The main legal point established in the judgment is that the arrest of the petitioners should be based on the Investigating Officer's belief and the necessity for arrest as per the provisions of Section 41 of Cr.P.C.

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 FIR dated 22.03.2015, lodged by respondent no. 3, registered as case crime no. 40 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, relating to P.S. Cantt., District Dehradun.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondent no. 2 not to arrest and harass the petitioners in connection with aforesaid case crime, till the pendency of the present writ petition.

2. When the matter was taken up for admission on 08.05.2015, interim protection from arrest was granted to the petitioners in connection with case crime no. 40 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, relating to P.S. Cantt., District Dehradun.

3. Notice was issued to respondent no. 3, but none has appeared on her behalf.

4. Learned Brief Holder submitted that the investigation of the case is under progress and it will take sometime to complete the same.

5. Learned counsel for the parties proposed that the writ petition may be disposed of, in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, inasmuch as the investigation is going on and, ultimately, it will culminate either into filing of the charge-sheet or submission of final report, whichever way the case may go, against the petitioners and this Court has no occasion to interfere with the investigation, therefore, it will be of no use keeping the present criminal writ petition pending.

6. The criminal writ petition is accordingly disposed of in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar’s case (supra) wherein it was held that the petitioners should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of information and material collected, that they have committed an offence. Before making arrest, the Investigating Officer is required to satisfy himself that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged by Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. It will not be based upon the ipse dixit of the Police Officer. In other words, the petitioners shall be arrested only when the conditions stipulated in Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. are satisfied.

7. Writ petition thus stands disposed of with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.