Disposed

Rohit Goyal v. State

Rajasthan HC16 Jan 2019CRLMP/169/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a quashing petition by directing the investigating authority to consider a representation from the petitioner within ten days before completing the investigation. Additionally, the court granted the petitioner protection from arrest with a 15-day notice requirement prior to any custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to IA to consider representation within 10 days; grant of 15-day notice before arrest.

Rohit Goyal Vs State — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 169/2019

Rohit Goyal

----Petitioner

Versus

State

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. KS Lodha For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Order

¶11

16/01/2019

¶12

Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.605/2018 lodged at Police Station Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of IPC along with all proceedings pursuant thereto.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation are pertains to trading of grains. The complainant Manoj Goyal was approached by Rohit Goyal and Amit Goyal on 13.08.2018 with a proposal that they have a high quality Gwar is in stock and if he purchases the same, he can reap certain profits. An agreement was entered to purchase 300 quintals of Gwar @ Rs.4500/- per quintal, in totality amount to a transaction worth Rs.13,50,000/-. The delivery was assured by the present petitioners but the delivery could not be made.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that on the face of it, it is a failed transaction of the Gwar which was entered into by the parties. It is further contended that initial payment was

¶15

[CRLMP-169/2019]

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

received but the transaction cannot be completed, as while practicing forward trading, the complainant was not in a position to purchase the same at this stage.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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 un-necessary hardship to the accused, who deserves a basic opportunity of explaining his case before the Investigating Authority without fear of arrest. The

¶22

[CRLMP-169/2019]

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

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.

¶25

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶26

27-Sudheer/-

Rohit Goyal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Goyal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopiram Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Priyanka Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalit Gopal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan