IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1692 of 2022

Shafat Ali

.....…….

Petitioner

versus

State of Uttarakhand & others...…………. Respondents

Ms. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the writ applicant.

Mr. J. S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Ms.

Manisha Rana, learned AGA for the State.

-----------

Judgement dated: 07.09.2022

Hon’ble Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

Upon hearing the learned counsels, the Court made the

following Order.

1.

By filing the writ application, the petitioner has

prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) A writ, order in the nature of certiorari

quashing the impugned FIR No. 805 of 2022,

under Sections 143, 186, 504, 353, 341 IPC,

PS Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar (Annexure

No. 1).

(ii) Writ, order or direction in the nature of

mandamus commanding the respondent no.1

& 2 not to harass the petitioner in view of the

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in

Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014, Anresh

Kumar vs. State of Bihar and other, and thus,

a due process of law shall be followed as

2

enshrined under Section 41 and 41A of

Cr.P.C.”

2.

It is submitted that the First Information Report

has been registered against the eight persons

and out of them five persons have already been

arrested though Sections 41 and 41A of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the ratio

decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is clearly

applicable to. It is also submitted by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that those five

persons have been produced before the learned

Magistrate and they have been remanded in

total violation of the Order passed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar

(supra).

3.

As far as the prayer for quashing the First

Information Report is concerned, a close

examination of the FIR and reading of the case,

there is no scope for interference in the same.

However,

the

allegations

made

by

the

petitioners in this case regarding the conduct of

the Investigating Officer and the Police are very

serious.

4.

So, we take note of the submissions made by

the learned Deputy Advocate General that the

office of learned Advocate General has already

intimated to the Director General of Police to

follow the dictum of the judgement of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs.

State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and dispose of

3

the Writ Application that such vagrant violation

of law shall not be tolerated and in every such

case, the contempt case shall be initiated

against the erring Officer.

5.

It is also brought to the notice of this Court that

the

Additional

Chief

Judicial

Magistrate,

Roorkee has not followed the dictum of Arnesh

Kumar (supra), and has not recorded any

reason for the same. Therefore, the Registry is

directed to send the copy of this Order to the

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Roorkee through the District Judge, Haridwar,

for information.

6.

With such observations, the writ application is

disposed of.

7.

Let a copy of this Order be supplied to the

learned Deputy Advocate General Mr. J.S.Virk,

for early compliance.

(S.K.Mishra, J.)

(Grant urgent copy of this order as per Rules)

Kaushal