##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Single No.1355 of 2012

12 August, 2026 Kamal Kumar Lunthi --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for petitioner.

Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned D.A.G. for the State of Uttarakhand/

respondent Nos.1 to 4.

Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 30.06.2011 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition) as well as consequential order dated 09.09.2012 issued by respondent No.3 (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition).

2. The brief facts of the case are that, in the year 2010, petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector In-charge, Lakhi Bagh Chowki, Police Station Kotwali Dehradun. On 25.05.2010, an FIR was lodged by Sanjay Mittal at Police Station Kotwali against Bharat Bhushan Gupta and Naveen Nagar, as Case Crime No.196 of 2010, u/s 323, 504 and 506 IPC, with certain allegations and the Station Officer marked the said FIR for investigation to the petitioner. After investigation, recording of the statement of victim, site visit, the case diary was prepared and accused-Bharat Bhushan Gupta and Naveen Nagar were arrested on 26.05.2010 and charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner against them on 06.06.2010 and on 11.06.2010. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken the cognizance against the accused persons and thereafter issued summons against them. Respondent No.4-Bharat Bhushan Gupta moved a complaint on 05.06.2010 to respondent No.2 with certain allegations that Kailash Pawar (S.O.) and Ajay Singh (S.P.) were biased against him and his arrest was made by petitioner in unconstitutional manner. On the said complaint, respondent No.2 asked written reply from petitioner which was submitted by him on 15.07.2010 along with copy of Govt. Order dated 15.12.2006, whereby, it was specified that Section 506 IPC is cognizable and non-bailable. Respondent No.2 passed impugned order dated 30.06.2011 holding Section 506 IPC as non- cognizable and bailable, thus, according to respondent No.2, no arrest could be made without the order of court, and further passed an order that as the FIR was not lodged with correct version, thus, petitioner, who made the arrest, committed misconduct, for which a suitable action against the petitioner should be taken and directed the police authorities to take action and exonerated all other police officers. Thereafter, respondent No.3 pursuant to order dated 30.06.2011, issued a show cause notice against the petitioner on 07.09.2012, seeking reply within 15 days. Thus, petitioner is before this Court, challenging both the orders dated 30.06.2011 and 07.09.2012.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent No.2-State Police Complaint Authority, has no powers under the law as per the Police Act of 2007 to adjudicate upon the matter, which is under investigation or pending before the court as per the order impugned, whereupon number of findings relating to trial has been passed, which is completely illegal. He further submits that order impugned passed by respondent No.2 is completely illegal, as the petitioner was discharging his duties as given by Station Officer for doing investigation, thus, after recording of evidence, the accused was arrested, thus the order is per se illegal and thus, the consequential order is also illegal.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the “State Police Complaint Authority” is defined under Section 64 of the Police Act, wherein, authority consists of Chairperson and maximum four other members. However, in present case, impugned order dated 30.06.2011 was passed by Chairperson only and it did not bear signature of any other member. He further contends that whether the order has to be passed by Chairperson o