Disposed

Raj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Jan 2019CRLMP/32/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of an application for quashing of FIR in a land dispute. It directed the investigating authority to consider the petitioner's representation within ten days and granted protection from arrest, requiring a 15-day notice prior to any custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with direction to IA to consider representation in 10 days; granted 15-day notice protection before arrest.

Raj Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 32/2019

¶3

Raj Kumar S/o Shri Ambalal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Roopa Ji Ki Bari, Hiran Magari, Section 13, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

Ramesh Paliwal S/o Shri Radha Kishan, R/o Village Obra, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur. At Present Assistant Sub Inspector, Reserve Police Line, Bikaner.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. JP Joshi Sr. Advocate, Assisted by
	Mr. Khet Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Order

¶12

04/01/2019

¶13

Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.107/2018 lodged at Police Station Bhupalpura, District Udaipur, for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 – B of IPC along with all consequential proceeding pursuant thereto.

¶14

The FIR was lodged alleging therein that complainant was registered power of attorney holder of one Shri Duda Dangi and Pyarchand Dangi, both sons of Kalu Ji for alienation / transfer and act on behalf of land holders to sale or agreement to sale of land bearing Khasra No.223 measuring 0.0800 hectare. The complainant executed the sale deed in favour of one Ram Niranjan who approached him, who was also party in the suit.

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMP-32/2019]

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that regarding the same dispute, a civil suit was instituted between the same parties and the suit No.248/2011 has been decreed in favour of the petitioner on 17.12.2016 which is Annexure-5.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner wants 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 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.

¶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 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.

¶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

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CRLMP-32/2019]

¶24

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 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.

¶25

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶26

156-Sudheer/-

Raj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar 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

Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Vashishth Vs State

Chetan and Anr. Vs State

Sunil Kumar Modi Vs State of Rajasthan

Ruksar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Kumar Vs Abhay Kumar