Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 177 (RAJ)

Sushila Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-15

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. Petitioners has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 0013/2019 lodged at Police Station Basni, Jodhpur Rajasthan for the offences under Sections 384, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 504 and 120-B of IPC. 2. The complaint has been filed with an allegation in respect to the dispute which is already pending trial in criminal cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of dishonour of cheque worth amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has demonstrated from the record that the present FIR is nothing but a simple concoction of facts by the complainant to avoid proceeding of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the language of the FIR in which the business transactions between M/s. Mannat International and Milan marketing is reflected. The business relationships indicates that the parties were in continuous transactions with each other but the business relationship has deviated for which the Negotiable Instruments Act cases were lodged and as a counterblast, present FIR has been lodged. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the petitioners want 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 petitioners submit 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 petitioners submit 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. 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 un-necessary 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. 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 petitioners, then the petitioners shall be given 15 days' notice before making such arrest. The petitioners shall be required to join the investigation. The petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court again, in case need arises.