JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 398/2016 lodged at Police Station Bhilwara Kotwali, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of IPC along with the proceedings pursuant thereto. 2. The petitioner is a lady. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the medical documents including opinion obtained from a Doctor of Chandigarh, PGI, which indicates that she is suffering from brain tumor. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is willing and ready to join the investigation. 4. Looking into the serious nature of ailment of the petitioner and the medical documents coupled with the facts of the case, this Court grants a limited intervention. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner wants to submit a representation along with all the relevant documents before the concerned investigating authority to redress the issue. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor assures this Court that if the petitioner submits a representation along with all the necessary documents before the concerned investigating authority within a period of ten days from today, then the same shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law, before completing the investigation. 7. In light of the aforesaid assurance given by learned Public Prosecutor, the present misc. petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned investigating authority that in case the petitioner submits a representation along with all the necessary documents before it within a period of ten days from today, then the same shall be considered and decided before completing the investigation, strictly in accordance with law and as per the assurance given by the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. In the peculiar facts of the case, it would be appropriate to grant protection from arrest to the petitioner as it will be a waste of energy and resources of the Police Department to run after the accused to complete the related investigation and without protection it would also cause unnecessary hardship to the accused, who deserves a basic opportunity of explaining his case before the Investigating Authority without fear of arrest. The Investigating Officer, however, shall have the liberty of custodial interrogation after giving 15 days’ notice before arrest if required. The Investigating Officer, however, shall have the liberty of custodial interrogation after giving 15 days’ notice before arrest if required. In the interest of justice and the facts and circumstances noted by this Court, the limited protection is justified. Therefore, if during the investigation, the concerned investigating authority needs to arrest the petitioner, then the petitioner shall be given 15 days’ notice before making such arrest. The petitioner shall be required to join the investigation.