Shafat Ali vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2821 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


         Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1692 of 2022


Shafat Ali                    ............             Petitioner

                              versus

State of Uttarakhand & others................          Respondents



Ms. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the writ applicant.
Mr. J. S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Ms.
Manisha Rana, learned AGA for the State.

                           -----------

                   Judgement dated: 07.09.2022

Hon'ble Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

Upon hearing the learned counsels, the Court made the following Order.

1. By filing the writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) A writ, order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR No. 805 of 2022, under Sections 143, 186, 504, 353, 341 IPC, PS Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar (Annexure No. 1).

(ii) Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 & 2 not to harass the petitioner in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014, Anresh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and other, and thus, a due process of law shall be followed as

enshrined under Section 41 and 41A of Cr.P.C."

2. It is submitted that the First Information Report has been registered against the eight persons and out of them five persons have already been arrested though Sections 41 and 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is clearly applicable to. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that those five persons have been produced before the learned Magistrate and they have been remanded in total violation of the Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra).

3. As far as the prayer for quashing the First Information Report is concerned, a close examination of the FIR and reading of the case, there is no scope for interference in the same. However, the allegations made by the petitioners in this case regarding the conduct of the Investigating Officer and the Police are very serious.

4. So, we take note of the submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General that the office of learned Advocate General has already intimated to the Director General of Police to follow the dictum of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and dispose of

the Writ Application that such vagrant violation of law shall not be tolerated and in every such case, the contempt case shall be initiated against the erring Officer.

5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee has not followed the dictum of Arnesh Kumar (supra), and has not recorded any reason for the same. Therefore, the Registry is directed to send the copy of this Order to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee through the District Judge, Haridwar, for information.

6. With such observations, the writ application is disposed of.

7. Let a copy of this Order be supplied to the learned Deputy Advocate General Mr. J.S.Virk, for early compliance.

(S.K.Mishra, J.) (Grant urgent copy of this order as per Rules)

Kaushal