Dismissed

Jai Prakash and Others v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC27 Apr 2015WPCRL/180/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought quashing of an FIR alleging offenses under IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court, invoking Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, disposed of the petition without a full trial, directing the investigation officer to complete proceedings under Section 173 Cr.P.C. without unnecessary delay and adhering to arrest guidelines.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; investigation must be completed without delay by following report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and arrest guidelines from Arnesh Kumar.

Jai Prakash and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others — Quashing and FIR | Uttarakhand HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Writ Petition No. 180 of 2015

¶3

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

¶4

Jai Prakash and six others ....….…… Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

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

¶7

Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate, present for the writ petitioners. Mr. S.S.Adhikari, Brief Holders, present for the State/respondents no. 1 and 2.

¶8

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

¶9

By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek to quash the impugned FIR dated 01.02.2015, lodged by respondent no.3, registered as Case Crime No. 28 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, PS Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun.

¶10

Learned counsel for the State says that the investigation of the case is under progress and it will take sometime to complete the same.

¶11

When the writ petition was taken up for admission on 20.02.2015, this Court passed the following order:

¶12

“As an interim measure, it is provided that though the investigation may go on against the petitioners but they shall not be arrested till the next date of listing or till filing of the charge

¶13

¶14

sheet whicherver is earlier, in pursuance of the Case Crime No. 28 of 2015 under Sections 498A/323/504 & 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun.”

¶15

None is present for the respondent no. 3 despite service of notice. Registry has indicated that notice was issued to respondent no. 3 by registered post with A.D., returnable on or before 24.03.2015. Acknowledgement card has been received after service upon him. As a consequence thereof, Criminal Writ Petition is being heard and decided with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State.

¶16

Considering the facts of the case as, it will be of no use keeping the present criminal writ petition pending for disposal, inasmuch as, the investigation is going on and ultimately, the investigation will come to its logical conclusion only under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code either by a final report or by a chargesheet. The same is accordingly being disposed of 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 , wherein it was held as below:

¶17

“7.1 From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. A police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence

¶18

¶19

to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. These are the conclusions, which one may reach based on facts.

¶20

7.2 The law mandates the police officer to state the facts and record the reasons in writing which led him to come to a conclusion covered by any of the provisions aforesaid, while making such arrest. The law further requires the police officers to record the reasons in writing for not making the arrest.

¶21

7.3 In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should have reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to be satisfied further 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.”

¶22

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 petitioners.

¶23

The investigating officer is requested to complete the investigation without unnecessary delay in terms of subsection (1) of Section 173 Cr.P.C.

¶24

Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of with the directions as above.

¶25

(U.C. Dhyani, J.) 27.04.2015

¶26

Kaushal

¶27

Jai Prakash and Others v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash and Others v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaswant Singh @ Jassa Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Nitin Chauhan Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Jagdish Dutt Sharma Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Vaibhav Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Arvind Kumar Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Pradeep Garg and Another Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another