Disposed

Amit Chalana v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Jul 2019CRLMP/2017/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing an FIR for Section 306 IPC against a bank employee. The court directed the Investigating Authority to issue a notice under Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. before arrest, relying on Arnesh Kumar.

What did the court decide?

Criminal miscellaneous petition disposed with direction to Investigating Authority to issue notice under Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. before arrest.

Amit Chalana Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2017/2019

¶3

Amit Chalana S/o Ved Prakashji, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Chalana, Resident Of 3/3 Shankar Colony, Ward No. 30, Shri Ganganagar (Raj) Presently Working As Team Leader (Collection), A U Small Finance Bank, Shri Ganganagar

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

Rajendra Kumar S/o Harji Ram Kumhar, By Caste Kumhar, R/o 100 Footi Road, Near Primary Health Center, W.no. 42, Hanumangarh Junction, Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. Dashrath Singh For Respondents : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

11/07/2019

¶13

This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. No. 156/2019 registered at Police Station Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being an employee of A U Small Finance Bank, Shri Ganganagar is working in the collection section of the said bank. He does not dispute the fact that for repayment of loan due to the bank, the petitioner is duty bound to call all those persons who have not deposited the requisite amount due to the bank.

¶15

Learned public prosecutor has produced the factual report wherein it is stated that last call was made by the deceased to the

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLMP-2017/2019]

¶18

petitioner soon before his death and the conversation was about 740 seconds besides there are nine short text messages also sent from the mobile of the deceased.

¶19

Factual report is taken on record.

¶20

Considering the submissions made at the bar, I am of the view that since the petitioner is an employee of the bank and performing the duty in the collection section of the bank, therefore, he was under an obligation to call the persons from whom the amount of the bank is due.

¶21

In these circumstances, the present misc. petition is disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Authority that in the event of the Investigating Officer coming to the conclusion that the allegations against the petitioner are substantiated and the arrest is warranted in the matter then, he will give a notice to the petitioner under Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. before seven days of arresting him in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2014)8 SCC 273 & AIR 2014 SC 2756. In this judgment specific direction to the State Government to ensure the compliance of the provisions of Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C has also been given.

¶22

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶23

203-SanjayS/-

Amit Chalana v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Chalana 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Rawal Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Rawal Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Rawal Vs State of Rajasthan

Devendra Signh Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilbar Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Suraj Vs State of Rajasthan