Piyush Kumar @ Piyush vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 346 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                  Writ Petition (Crl.) No.274 of 2021

Piyush Kumar @ Piyush                                     ....... Petitioner

                                    Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                        .......Respondents
Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Rohit Dhyani, Brief Holder
for the State.

                               Judgment

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(oral)

             The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the

impugned FIR No.80 of 2021 dated 23.01.2020, under Sections 147,

148, 149, 323, 506, 307 IPC, registered at P.S. Gang Nahar, District-

Haridwar and a mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest

the petitioner in connection with the impugned FIR.

2.           Facts

necessary for disposal of this petition, briefly

stated, are as hereunder:-

According to the FIR, on 30.01.2021 at 10:45 p.m. when

respondent no.3, the complainant along with his friends was getting

their food packed at a dhaba suddenly the petitioner along with one

more person came there and they had some small altercation. The

informant returned his house. Soon thereafter, the petitioner along

with 5 to 6 other boys came at his residence and fired at them. The

informant somehow saved his life and bolted the door from inside.

They came against after 10 minutes and fired and threatened the

informant to his life. According to FIR, informant and others got

themselves medically examined.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is

totally a false case; in fact, the informant had assaulted the petitioner;

the petitioner sustained injuries but due to political pressure he has

been falsely implicated. It is also argued that the petitioner is about

18 years of age; according to the learned for the petitioner, in fact, a

small altercation has been given a shape of a heinous offence.

4. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. The factual aspects cannot be examined in this petition. Not

only this the reliability, credibility of the material also does not fall

for consideration at this stage. If the FIR discloses commission of any

offences, interference is not warranted. In the instant case, the FIR

discloses as to how the offence was committed. In fact, as stated on

behalf of the petitioner, it is admitted that some altercation took place

but, as stated, according to the FIR, after altercation informant was

attacked and fired also. Therefore, this Court of the view that there is

no reason to make any interference and the petition deserves to be

dismissed.

5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that a direction may be issued and the petitioner should not be

arrested in a routine and mechanical manner. This is entirely another

issue.

6. Needless to say, arrest is not a mechanical act of the

Investigating Officer. First and foremost, he has to ascertain the

complicity of a person in the offence and thereafter, to weigh in his

mind the need for arresting. This Court has no doubt that the

Investigating Officer, in the instant case, shall also follow the law on

the subject of arrest, if any occasion to arrest arises in the instant

case.

7. With the above observations, the instant writ petition is

dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) Vacation Judge 15.02.2021

BS/SS