Virendra Yadav vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. No.0112 under Section 379 I.P.C., P.S. Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar.

Heard and perused the records.

The F.I.R. was lodged by Revenue Sub Inspector under Section 379 I.P.C. According to it, there was a dispute with regard to property, which was taken into custody by the Tehsildar Kichha on 26.01.2011 but the petitioner in a meeting of Gram Sabha, passed a resolution and unlawfully removed 656 trees standing thereon.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the trees were planted by a Meenkshi Aggarwal, she was permitted to cut the trees. It was done pursuant to a resolution. With regard to the custody of the property, when asked, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in fact, on 26.01.2011 the Tehsildar took the land along with trees into custody, in presence of the petitioner and Revenue Sub Inspector of the area concerned. A supurdaginama has also been filed.

The land and the trees were taken into custody by Tehsildar pursuant to the order of a court and this fact was well within the notice of the petitioner because he has witnessed the process of supardagi in the presence of Revenue Sub Inspector. How permission was given to someone to cut those trees? F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence. In these proceedings, the Court would not deeply examine the issue to adjudicate about the criminal liability. Therefore, this Court is of the view that petition deserves to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that direction may be issued that the petitioner may not be arrested in routine and mechanical manner without following guidelines in this regard. Reference has been made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014)8 SCC 27, therefore, they may be protected from arrest.

In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), while interpreting and making reference to the various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pertaining to arrest and production of the accused before the Magistrate, the Hon'ble Court observed as under:-

"11. Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest the accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically......."

Thereafter, from paragraph no.11.2 to 11.8, Hon'ble Court, in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) issued directions to the Police Officers authorized to make arrest as well as to the Magistrate authorized to order of detention of the accused.

Needless to say, Investigating Officer shall abide by the directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) before effecting arrest of the petitioner. The Senior Superintendent of Police, District Udham Singh Nagar shall ensure it.

Accordingly, with the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.