SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Unknown vs Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, Deputy … on 24 July, 2014

Uttaranchal High Court Unknown vs Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, Deputy … on 24 July, 2014

WPCRL No.859 OF 2014

U. C. Dhyani, J.

Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate present for the petitioners.

Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, Deputy Advocate General present for the State.

Mr. R. K. S. Verma, Advocate put in his appearance on behalf of respondent no.3. Respondents may file counter affidavits within four weeks.

An FIR was lodged against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Whereas the petitioner no.1 (Rajendra Chauhan) is the husband of respondent no.3, petitioner no.2 (Smt. Nirmala) is the mother-in-law of respondent no.3. So far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, she, being the mother-in-law of respondent no.3, is entitled for interim protection from her arrest. It is thus provided, as an interim measure that no coercive measures shall be taken against petitioner no.2 (Smt. Nirmala) during the course of interrogation and investigation, provided she cooperates with the Investigating Agency. This interim protection shall be valid till the next date of listing. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that some kind of interim protection from arrest be given to the petitioner no.1(husband). Learned counsel placed a copy of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.07.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.1277 of 2014, captioned as Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & another. This Court has carefully perused the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is provided that petitioner no.1 (husband of respondent no.3) 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 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.

CLMA no.7970/2014 stands disposed of accordingly.

(U. C. Dhyani, J.)

Dated 24.07.2014

Rawat-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 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