Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
No directions and
WPCRL No.1132 of 2021
Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik, J .
Mr. Shariq Khurshid, learned
counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
Advocate General for the State.
This writ petition is filed seeking for
a writ of certiorari to quash the FIR
lodged against the petitioners, details
whereof are given in the prayer clause.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
would submit that the offence under
Section 377 IPC is against the co-
accused (husband of the respondent no.
3) not against the present applicants.
The writ petition is being disposed
of at the admission stage itself with the
consent of learned counsel for the
In view of the judgment rendered
by Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar
v. State of Bihar and another,
reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, the
petitioners should be arrested only when
the Investigating Officer has reason to
believe on the basis of information and
material collected, that they have
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
petitioners shall be arrested only when
the conditions stipulated in Sub-Clauses
The prayer is not being objected to
by the learned State Counsel.
Criminal writ petition is summarily
disposed of with the direction as above
and with the consent of learned counsel
for the parties.
All pending applications also stand
(N.S. Dhanik, J.)