Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 503 (RAJ)

Surendra v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-02-12

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Members of the Bar are abstaining from work today. 2. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 01/2019 lodged at Police Station Tibbi, Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 of IPC. 3. The petitioner No. 1 is the husband of respondent No. 2, as the marriage was solemnized on 18.04.2018 between them. The petitioner No. 1 present in person submits that he is a Junior Engineer in Panchayat Samiti and though the marriage is recent but the discord has resulted into lodging of the present FIR. 4. The petitioner No. 1 present in person also submits that there is an over implication in the present FIR, as most of his family members have been implicated in the complaint. 5. The petitioner No. 1 present in person, however, submits that the he wants to submit a representation alongwith 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. 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. 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.