Disposed

Lalita v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Jan 2019CRLMP/289/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an FIR against the petitioner, a Sarpanch accused of forgery for age discrepancy in election papers. The court granted protection from arrest, allowing the petitioner 15 days' notice before arrest if required, to enable her to submit documents to the investigating authority.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the investigating authority to consider the petitioner's representation within 10 days, and protection from arrest granted with 15 days' notice before

Lalita Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 289/2019

¶3

Lalita W/o. Prakash Singh Meena, Aged About 28 Years, Kalyanpura, Ps Badisadri, Dist Chittorgarh.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

Prakash S/o Shyam Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Naya Khera, Ps Badisadri, Dist Chittorgarh.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Order

¶12

17/01/2019

¶13

The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No.40/2015 lodged at P.S. Badi Sadri, District Chittorgarh for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC

¶14

The allegation against the present petitioner, who is a lady Sarpanch, is that while filing nomination she forged her educational document so as to indicate her date of birth to be 05.9.1990 instead of 30.5.1998. Further allegation is that being minor she was ineligible to contest election and, therefore, she could not have contested the same. Counsel for the petitioner has shown document issued by the Principal of Government Upper Primary School, Naya Kheda, Badi Sadri, Chittorgarh, issued under Ref No.2010 on 07.10.2014, that is much prior to the petitioner

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMP-289/2019]

¶17

contesting the elections, which indicates that the petitioner’s date of birth is 05.9.1990.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wants to submit a representation alongwith all the relevant documents before the concerned investigating authority to redress her issue. 4. 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.

¶19

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 petitioner submits 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.

¶20

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 Investigating Officer, however, shall have the liberty of custodial

¶21

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-289/2019]

¶22

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

¶23

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶24

Sanjay

Lalita v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalit Gopal Vs State of Rajasthan

Suwalal Vs State

Pramila Vs State of Rajasthan

Murli Manohar Vs State of Rajasthan