SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(UK) 47

U.C.DHYANI
Maheshwar Patwal – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Sangeeta Bharadwaj
For the State-Respondents: Mr. A.S. Gill, Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Mr. Milind Raj

JUDGMENT :

U.C. Dhyani, J.

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner prays for the following relief, among others:

“Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for the records and quashing the FIR dated 28.10.2016 (Annexure No. 1), lodged by the respondent no. 3 on the basis of which, a case crime no. 274 of 2016, under Sections 420,504 and 506 of IPC was registered at PS Doiwala, District Dehradun, so far as it relates to the petitioners.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, perused the documents brought on record and considered the grounds taken up in the writ petition.

3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not interfering with the property in question. He has no concern with the same, therefore, he should be granted protection.

4. In view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 273, the petitioner should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of information and material collected, that he has committed an offence. Before making






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top