The court emphasized that the allegations in the FIR disclosed the commission of offenses, and it was for the investigating officer to determine the petitioner's role and involvement in the incident.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioner Gulfam seeks quashing of an FIR No. 340 of 2020 under Sections 153-A, 295-A IPC and under Section 26 of Indian Forest Act, 1927, Police Station Vikasnagar, District Dehradun.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

3. According to the FIR, under the garb of cutting trees, the co-accused Arif demolished a Hanuman temple and also desecrated and damaged the idol. It has outraged the religious feelings of a community.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner is a contractor, who was given a task of cutting trees by the Forest Department and one of his worker was on the spot. Petitioner has no role, in any manner, with any incident. In fact, it is also argued that temple was not damaged.

5. Annexure No. 3 are photographs of the concerned temple, as stated in para 6 of the petition and according to the petition, the workers have only removed the railing of the temple and they did not touch the idol, but, the photograph reveals that not only railings, but, its roof was also dismantled. This Court refrains to make any further observation about these photographs.

6. There are categorical allegations against the petitioner and co-accused. The FIR, in fact, discloses commission of offences, as confirmed by the photographs filed by the petitioner himself. However, it is one thing that the petitioner was awarded work of cutting trees, but, he was never asked by any authorities to damage a temple. The question is whether any damage was done to the temple or the idol and definitely, it falls for the consideration of the Investigating Officer. It is also for consideration of the Investigating Officer, as to whether, the petitioner has any role in it. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is warranted in the instant matter.

7. On behalf of the petitioner, it is also argued that the petitioner should not be arrested in a very routine and mechanical manner. Reference has been made to the judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 .

8. Needless to say, arrest is not a mechanical act of the Investigating Officer. First and foremost, he has to ascertain the complicity of a person in the offence and thereafter, to weigh in his mind the need for arresting. This Court has no doubt that the Investigating Officer, in the instant case, shall also follow the law on the subject of arrest, if any occasion arises, in the instant case.

9. With the above observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.