MOHD RASHID Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. dated 14.07.2016, registered as Case Crime No.491 of 2016, under Section 379 & 411 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kotwali Haridwar, District Haridwar. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondent nos. 1 & 2 not to harass and arrest the petitioner in view of the impugned F.I.R. till the collection of credible evidence against the petitioner or till the filing of the report submitted under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) On 14.07.2016, an F.I.R. was registered in Mayapur Chowki, Haridwar, District Haridwar regarding theft of Qualis car bearing No. UA08A-8506. It was prayed in the F.I.R. that appropriate action may be taken in the said matter. Now, this petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the said F.I.R.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the matter and, in fact, the petitioner was not at all indulged in the instant crime. He submitted that the impugned F.I.R. should be quashed, inasmuch as, there is delay in lodging the F.I.R.; no public witness is mentioned in the F.I.R.; no specific role assigned to the petitioner; no injury is caused to anybody in the said incident; no dangerous weapon is used in the incident. Lastly, he would submit that provision of Section 41 (1) Cr.P.C. is not being followed by the I.O., which is a mandatory provision as provided in Cr.P.C. and, in view of guidelines given in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, the petitioner should not be arrested without informing him. He prayed that the present writ petition may be disposed of considering the judgment in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2014 8 SCC 273, by directing the respondents not to take coercive steps against the petitioner during the pendency of investigation.