WPCRL/1686/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 3596 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  WPCRL No.1686 of 2021
                                  Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Pratirup Pandey, learned A.G.A. along with Mr. Pramod Tewari, learned B.H. for the State.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of present writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash impugned FIR/Case Crime No.59 of 2021 dated 14.07.2021, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 120B IPC, registered at Police Station Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal.

The writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that a finance company was constituted in the name of 'Bharat Bhumi Agrotech Limited' wherein many persons invested their money; the present petitioner is one of the Director along with Sandeep Singh Kandari and Mahesh Pant; on 02.04.2016 an MOU was executed among the Directors; as per paragraph no. 2 all the liabilities handed over to Director-Mahesh Pant; as per paragraph No.3 the present petitioner-Mehtab Ali and Sandeep Singh Kandari have been exempted from the liabilities. Accordingly, the present petitioner tendered his resignation, which was accepted; when the investor made the complaint to the company for getting their money; accordingly, the petitioner submitted a complaint to D.I.G. of Police on 13.10.2020.

Since the petitioner has tendered his resignation and as per the MOU all the liabilities has been fixed upon Mahesh Pant (Director); accordingly, no FIR can be lodged against the present petitioner.

In view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, the petitioner should be arrested only when the Investigating Officer has reason to believe on the basis of information and material collected, that he has committed an offence. Before making arrest, the Investigating Officer is required to satisfy himself 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. It will not be based upon the ipsi dixit of the Police Officer. In other words, the petitioner shall be arrested only when the conditions stipulated in Sub-Clauses (a) to

(e) of Clause (1) of Section 41 of Cr.P.C. are satisfied. Petitioner is directed to contact the Investigating Officer; he will cooperate with the investigation and will not tamper with the evidence.

Criminal writ petition is summarily disposed of with the direction as above.

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

(R.C. Khulbe, J.) 10.09.2021 BS