SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Sunita And Six Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 6 August, 2014

Uttaranchal High Court Smt. Sunita And Six Others vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 6 August, 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

Criminal Writ Petition No. 915 of 2014

Smt. Sunita and six others ………….. Petitioners

versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ………… Respondents

Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate, present for the writ petitioners. Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Mr. K.S.Rawal, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondents no. 1 & 2.

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

1. A first information report was lodged against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Whereas the petitioner no. 7 is the husband of respondent no. 3, the others are family members/relatives of the petitioner no. 7.

2. Issue notice to the respondent no. 3. Steps be taken within a week. List after the notice is served upon the respondent no. 3.

3. It is provided, as an interim measure, that during the course of interrogation and investigation, no coercive 2

measures shall be taken against the petitioners no. 1 to 6, provided they cooperate with the investigating agency.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that some kind of interim protection from arrest may also be given to the petitioner no. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed a copy of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court on July, 2, 2014, in Criminal Appeal No. 1277 of 2014, captioned as Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another.

5. This Court has carefully considered the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is provided that the petitioner no. 7-husband 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 ipse dixit of the Police Officer. In other words, the petitioner no. 7 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.

6. Misc. Application No. 8487 of 2014 stands disposed of.

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)

06.08.2014

Kaushal

3

4

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation