WPCRL/1386/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 2966 UK

                   Office Notes,
                reports, orders or
                 proceedings or
Sl. No   Date                                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                  directions and
                Registrar's order
                 with Signatures
                                     WPCRL No.1386 of 2023
                                     Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Amit Bhatt, Deputy A.G., for the State of Uttarakhand.

This Court is of the view that quashing of an FIR by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be amenable, once while exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, entails of appreciation of evidence, to cull out as to whether an offence is made out or not. Apart from it, all the offences for which the FIR has been registered, they carry a sentence of less than seven years as it has been pleaded by the petitioner in para-19 of the writ petition, which is extracted hereunder: -

"That the offence U/s 504, 506 IPC, 3(1) (r) of SC/ST Act are containing less than 7 years of punishment and the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation, as such the petitioners deserves to be grant protection under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. for his arrest but the police of P.S. Patelnagar wants to arrest the petitioners against the law as the police has hand in gloves with the complainant."

Since all the offences carry a sentence of less then seven years, there is no imeediate apprehension of arrest of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, as reported in 2014 (8) SCC

273. The writ petition would stands disposed of with liberty left open for the petitioner to resort to his remedies as provided by the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as rendered in the matter of Arnesh Kumar (Supra).

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 05.10.2023 Nahid