Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 483 (RAJ)

Vinod Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan

2019-02-11

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 64/2019 lodged qua them at P.S. Pratap Nagar, Banswara for offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submit that there was an agreement between the parties on 03.4.2012 whereupon the parties, who are partners in the firm, started business transactions. Counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that an arbitration clause is there in the agreement itself as per which any dispute arising out of business shall be resolved by referring it to Arbitrator. The allegations of cheating and mis-appropriation levelled by the complainant are per se false. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners want to submit a representation alongwith all the relevant documents before the concerned investigating authority to redress their issue. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor assures this Court that if the petitioners submit a representation alongwith all 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 petitioners submit a representation alongwith all 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. 6. In the peculiar facts of the case, it would be appropriate to grant protection from arrest to the petitioners 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. 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 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.