Pooja Bedi And Another ....... ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 351 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                  Writ Petition (Crl.) No.278 of 2021

Pooja Bedi and another                                    ....... Petitioners

                                    Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others                        .......Respondents
Mr. Shashank Pandey, Advocate for the petitioners.
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 for quashing the

impugned FIR No.175 of 2020 dated 18.10.2020, under Sections 406,

420, 120-B of IPC and under Sections 4/5 of Prize Chits & Money

Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, registered at P.S.

Dalanwala, District Dehradun, and seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in

connection with the impugned FIR.

2.           Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3.           Facts

necessary for disposal of this petition, briefly

stated, are as hereunder:-

According to the FIR, which has been lodged by

respondent no.3, the petitioners persuaded the informant to invest in

their kitty business. The informant deposited Rs.8.87 lakhs to the

petitioners. But after maturity date, the money was not refunded to

the informant. Whenever the informant approached the petitioners, on

one pretext or other they avoided making the payment and

subsequently, they under a design took back the kitty committee

cards from the informant and gave her cheque of Rs.7.40 lakhs. The

cheque, when presented, was dishonoured. Subsequently, there are

allegations that the informant was threatened to life also.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

informant has alternate remedy under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1888 and dispute is civil in nature. Learned counsel

for the petitioners also apprehends that the petitioners may be arrested

in a routine and mechanical manner.

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

India. In case, the FIR discloses commission of offences, in such

matter interference is not warranted. In the instant case the FIR

discloses commission of offences. What is its truthfulness, credibility

or the reliability, it is subject which falls for consideration during

investigation. Therefore, this Court of the view that there is no reason

to make any interference and the present petition deserves to be

dismissed.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that a direction may be issued that the petitioners should not be

arrested in a routine and mechanical manner.

7. 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.

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

dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) Vacation Judge 16.02.2021

BS/SS