Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 556 (RAJ)

Yashpal Singh Chouhan v. State, Through PP

2019-02-15

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. 25/2019 lodged qua them at P.S. Mahila Thana Jodhpur City West for the offence under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 354 and 511 IPC. 2. The matter pertains to matrimonial dispute. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10.12.2017. Counsel for the petitioners has shown registered notice dated 03.1.2019 given to wife for restitution of conjugal rights, which resulted in spilling over the issue and as a counterblast to that the complainant-wife has filed lodged FIR No. 025/2019 at P.S. Mahila Thana, Jodhpur City West on 15.1.2019 levelling false and frivolous allegations implicating whole of inlaws side just to harass and humiliate them in society. 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.