Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vikram vs State on 20 December, 2018
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4675/2018
1. Vikram S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 40 Years, Sri
Ganganagar
2. Om Prakash S/o Gordhan Lal, Aged About 63 Years, Both
R/o Village 48, Madhuban Colony, Sri Ganganagar, Raj
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State, Through Pp
2. Nand Kishore S/o Bhanwar Lal, 76, Antday Nagar,
Bikaner, Kotwali Bikaner, Dist Bikaner Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ambalal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 20/12/2018
1. Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.454/2018 lodged at Police Station Sadar Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 120-B of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property dispute between both the parties is a civil dispute, as the complainant has alleged that the documents executed between the petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 are false and fabricated and have been executed without knowledge of respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further shown the proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. initiated by Sub (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4675/2018] Divisional Magistrate Sri Ganganagar with the proceeding No.2 of 2018 which is going on.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also demonstrated from the certified copy of the suit No.38/2018 between the same party i.e. Om Prakash VS. Nand Kishore, which is a suit pertaining to declaration regarding the same land in question.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submit that the petitioners want 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 (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4675/2018] 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. 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.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 119-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)