Disposed

Kamla Paliwal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2019CRLMP/120/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous petition regarding a matrimonial dispute, the High Court disposed of the application to quash an FIR by granting protection from immediate arrest. The court directed the investigating authority to consider representations within ten days and ordered that if arrest is necessary, a 15-day notice must be provided to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with a direction to consider representations within ten days and an order granting limited protection from arrest requiring 15 days' notice before逮捕.

Kamla Paliwal Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 120/2019

¶3

Kamla Paliwal Spouse/o Bhagwati Lal Paliwal Brahmin, Aged About 53 Years, 2 G 23, Housing Board Colony, Hiran Magri, Udaipur.

¶4

Deepak Paliwal S/o Bhagwati Lal Paliwal Brahmin, Aged About 27 Years, 2 G 23, Housing Board Colony, Hiran Magri, Udaipur.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Chitralekha Paliwal D/o Madan Paliwal, Arvind Nagar, Sundar Bas, Udaipur, Raj.

¶9

Sho, Mahila Ps, Udaipur Raj.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SS Paliwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Order

¶14

09/01/2019

¶15

The petitioner has preferred this petition claiming following

¶16

relief:-

¶17

“It is therefore prayed that:-

¶18

a. the petition may kindly be allowed and FIR number 134/2018 PS Mahila Thana, Udaipur and all subsequent and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom may be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners, and meanwhile no coercive steps may be taken against the petitioners and others; and

¶19

b. any other appropriate/consequential orders or directions which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of equity, justice and good conscience may be passed.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 and

¶21

respondent No. 2 got married on 3.12.2017 but immediately

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

[CRLMP-120/2019]

¶24

thereafter the petitioner No. 1 had to leave for USA for further education and, therefore, could not take his wife with him.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that on the bare reading of the FIR no offence is made out and the couple stayed together only for few days and therefore the FIR is nothing but a concocted document for implicating the petitioner upon his inability to take his wife respondent No. 2 to USA.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners want to submit a representation alongwith all the relevant documents before the concerned investigating authority to redress the issue.

¶27

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 ten days from today, then the same shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law, before completing the investigation.

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

(3 of 3)

¶31

[CRLMP-120/2019]

¶32

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 petitioner shall be given 15 days’ notice before making such arrest. The petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court again, in case need arises. The petitioner shall be required to join the investigation.

¶33

(PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶34

ns. 116-

Kamla Paliwal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamla Paliwal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Makhan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rageshwari Singh Ranawat Vs State

Nihar Vyas Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxmi Lal Salvi Vs State of Rajasthan

Shiv Mohan Patel Vs State of Rajasthan

Seema Vs State of Rajasthan