Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR, relying on Arnesh Kumar. The court held arrests require strict satisfaction of Section 41 Cr.P.C. conditions. Petition disposed at admission stage directing cooperation.
Petition disposed at admission stage; petitioners directed to cooperate in investigation and appear before Investigation Officer on 16.8.2021.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| W PCRL 1 2 8 4 / 2 0 2 1 Hon’ble N.S. Dh an ik , J. |
|||
| Mr. Sharang Dhulia, Advocate, for the petitioners. |
|||
| Mr. Lalit Miglani, AGA, assisted by Ms. Lata Negi, Brief Holder for the State. |
|||
| By means of present writ petition, petitioners seek to quash the FIR, details whereof are given in the prayer clause. |
|||
| Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioners does not press this writ petition on merits |
|||
| and prays for grant of only interim |
|||
| protection during the course of investigation. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC |
|||
| 273. In view of the said verdict, the petitioners should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe, on the basis of information and material |
|||
| collected, that the accused/ suspect has | |||
| committed an offence. Before making |
| arrest, the Investigating Officer is requ | ired |
|---|---|
| to satisfy himself that the arrest |
is |
| necessary for one or more purp |
oses |
| envisaged by Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) | of |
| Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. It will be based upon the_ipsi dixit_of the P |
not olice |
| Officer. In other words, the petitioners s |
hall |
| be arrested only when the condit |
ions |
| stipulated in Sub-Clauses (a) to (e) | of |
| Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. | are |
| satisfied. Petitioners are directed cooperate in the investigation and ap |
to pear |
| before the Investigation Officer on or be 16.8.2021. With the direction as above, the |
fore writ |
| petition is being disposed of at |
the |
| admission stage itself with the consen | t of |
| learned Counsel for the petitioners learned State Counsel. ( N.S. Dh an ik , J 2 .8 .2 0 2 1 Pr |
and .) |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether arrest can be ordered without satisfaction of conditions under Section 41 Cr.P.C.
Whether petition seeks quashing of FIR or only interim protection pending investigation
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and anotherRelied on¶1
(2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
State
N.S. Dhani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
