Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Anwar Hussain Late S/O Late Roshan B/C ... vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 24 October, 2018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4724/2018
1. Anwar Hussain Late S/o Late Roshan B/c Teli, R/o
Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
2. Aarif Hussain S/o Anwar Husain B/c Teli, R/o
Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
3. Smt. Jannat W/o Anwar Hussain B/c Teli, R/o
Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
4. Smt. Sabnam W/o Aarif Hussain B/c Teli, R/o
Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Jaipur.
2. Smt. Gulab W/o Late Roshan B/c Teli B/c Teli, R/o
Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek PP Mr. Nikhil Sharma for respondent no.2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
-/Order/-
24/10/2018 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.232/2018 registered at Police Station Shrimadhopur, Sikar for the offences under Sections 453 and 380 IPC.
This Court on 9.8.2018 had passed the following order:-
"Counsel for the petitioners has contended that petitioners are co-sharer in the property in dispute. It is further contended that disputed house has not been partitioned and possession of the parties has not been demarcated.
(2 of 2) [CRLMP-4724/2018] Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no offence under Section 453 IPC is made out. It is further stated that details of the goods stolen have not been furnished, in the FIR.
Issue notice to the respondents for 24.10.2018. Meanwhile, further proceedings in the impugned FIR shall remain stayed."
Today, Nikhil Sharma has caused appearance for the respondent no.2. He has submitted that partition deed was executed on 3.3.2012 and thereafter, parties were living in their defined portion. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that a civil suit filed by the petitioners has already been dismissed for non-prosecution.
In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2, no interference is warranted and the present petition is dismissed.
However, considering that the offences for which petitioners are sought to be prosecuted, maximum sentence prescribed is seven years, the investigating officer is directed to comply with the provisions of Section 41 and 41A of Cr.P.C. by serving a two weeks prior notice upon the petitioners, in case the investigating officer decide to arrest the petitioners, to enable the petitioners to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for grant of pre-arrest bail.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)