Advocates:
['HARSHPAL SEKHON', '', 'SHAILABH PANDEY', 'G A']

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Writ Petition No.216 of 2022

Amit alias Amit Kumar and others …....... Petitioners

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others ..…...... Respondents

Presents:

Mr. Shailabh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. with Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Challenge in this petition is made to the FIR

No.41 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,

Police Station Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through

video conferencing and perused the record.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very

outset would submit that the case is covered by the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014)8

SCC 273; it is a matrimonial dispute; the petitioners are

ready to join investigation, but directions may be issued

to the Investigating Officer (for short, “IO”) that he should

2

follow the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

4.

In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), the

Hon’ble Supreme Court issued various direction with

regard to arrest and remand of an accused. Specific

mention is made to the offence punishable under Section

498-A IPC in the judgment. Particularly, para 11.1 of the

judgment in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) provides as

hereunder:-

“

11.1. All the State Governments to instruct its police

officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-

A IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for

arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section

41 CrPC”

5.

Even otherwise also, arrest is not a routine and

mechanical act of the IO. The IO is first to satisfy that

some offence is being committed and thereafter, to satisfy

that arrest is required, for further investigation of the

matter. In the cases like instant one, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has categorically laid down directions in

the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).

6.

This Court has no doubt that the IO shall

follow the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while

investigating the instant case.

3

7.

With these observations, the writ petition

stands disposed of.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

Vacation Judge

08.02.2022

Sanjay