Uttarakhand High Court
Sahabuddin And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 17 February, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 299 of 2021
Sahabuddin and another .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....Respondents
Present:- Mr. Ankurit Raj David, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Pratiroop Pandey, A.G.A for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Petitioners seek quashing of an FIR No. 17 of 2021, under
Sections 420, 504 and 506 IPC IPC, Police Station Nanakmatta, District
Udham Singh Nagar, which is lodged by respondent no.3 the informant.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. According to the FIR, the petitioners induced the
informant and six other women to make a group and take a loan.
Accordingly, the informant and six other women took a loan of
`50,000/- out of which, a heavy amount was taken by petitioner no.2-
Shabana, on the assurance that she would get their loan waived off from
the bank. But, subsequently, recovery was issued and when requested,
the petitioners did not pay their money.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioners have nothing to do with the loan taken by the informant and
other women. In fact, petitioner no.2-Shabana had already filed a civil
suit, restraining the informant and others not to recover the amount of
loan from her and the FIR is baseless.
5. In the FIR, there are categorical allegations against the
petitioners. The allegations are not general. It specifically mentions as
to what amount was taken from the informant and what amount was
taken from each other six women under the assurance of waiving off
their loan. Petitioner no2.-Shabana has also filed a Civil Suit No. 12 of
2020, in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Khatima, District
Udham Singh Nagar with regard to loan taken by the informant and
other women. The FIR discloses commission of offence. What is the
reliability and credibility of the allegations would definitely fall for
scrutiny by the Investigating Officer, therefore, no interference is
warranted and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
directions may be issued that the petitioners may 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 observation, the instant writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
(Vacation Judge)
17.02.2021
Shubham
