Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2463 (RAJ)

Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2019-09-13

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing of FIR No.0188/2019 registered at Police Station Kuchaman Sahar, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document Annexure-1 is an agreement between the parties, which indicates the business relationship between the complainant and the accused. He further submits that if the agreement is taken on record and the investigation is completed accordingly, no offence shall be made out against the present petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the petitioner wants to submit a representation alongwith all the relevant documents before the concerned investigating authority to redress the issue. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 petitioner, then the petitioner shall be given 15 days' notice before making such arrest. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court again, in case need arises. 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 at liberty to approach this Court again, in case need arises. The petitioner shall be required to join the investigation. Stay petition also stands disposed.