Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 152 (RAJ)

Mahendra Kumar Ojha v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-01-20

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2021
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court. 2. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR no.0154 of 2020 lodged at P.S. Hathipol, District Udaipur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8537/2017; Mahendra Kumar Ojha Vs. State & Ors., the relevant order being of 25.07.2017, by which, an interim protection was granted by this court regarding the controversy in question. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus, submits that the petitioner wants to submit a representation alongwith all the relevant documents before the concerned investigating authority to redress the issue. 5. 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 fifteen days from today, then the same shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law, before completing the investigation. 6. 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 fifteen 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. 7. 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 unnecessary hardship to the accused, who deserves a basic opportunity of explaining their 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 petitioner shall be given 15 days' notice before making such arrest. The petitioner shall be required to join the investigation. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court again, in case need arises. 8. The stay petition also stands disposed of.