Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Vinay and two others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 306 of 2017
Decided On : 09-03-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajveer Singh
For the State-Respondents: Mr. A.S. Gill, Mr. Prem Kaushal and Mr. K. S. Chaudhary
The conditions for arrest as stipulated in Section 41 of Cr.P.C. must be satisfied before the arrest of the accused.
Headnote:
Arrest - Criminal Writ Petition - The court held that the petitioners should 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, as per the judgment in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 273.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash the FIR and prevent their arrest in a case involving allegations of trespassing, outraging modesty, and assault.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the criminal writ petition at the admission stage, directing the petitioners to contact the Investigating Officer for interrogation and investigation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners should be arrested in the case, and whether the court should interfere in the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another to establish the conditions for arrest as stipulated in Section 41 of Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The criminal writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of the parties, and the petitioners were directed to cooperate with the Investigating Officer for interrogation and investigation.
U.C. Dhyani, J.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioners pray for the following reliefs, among others:
“(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the FIR dated 02.03.2017 registered as Case Crime No. 77 of 2017, under Sections 452, 323 and 354 of IPC.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in Case Crime No. 77 of 2017, under Sections 452, 323 and 354 of IPC, PS Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, till the pendency of the present writ petition.”
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. The allegation against the present petitioners is that they trespassed into the house of the complainant, tried to outrage the modesty of his daughter and assaulted the family members of the complainant.
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 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.
5. Needless to say that the Investigating Officer of the case shall abide by the aforesaid directions of Hon’ble Apex Court, before affecting the arrest, if any, of the petitioner.
6. Petitioners are directed to contact the Investigating Officer of the case on 16.03.2017, and on such subsequent dates as may be instructed by him (I.O.) for interrogation and investigation.
7. When the investigation of the case will be conducted, it will either culminate into filing of the charge-sheet or submission of final report. This Court has no occasion to interfere in the investigation in between.
8. Therefore, it will be of no use keeping the present criminal writ petition pending. Criminal Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of at the admission stage itself, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, who are present.
9. In the given facts and circumstances of the present writ petition, this Court does not feel it necessary to issue notice to the private respondent. Still, liberty is granted to him to move for recall of this Order, if he feels aggrieved with the same.
