Disposed

Kheta Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2019CRLMP/366/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of the criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleged to be an outcome of an election dispute. The court stayed proceedings pending representation and granted limited protection from arrest with 15 days notice requirement.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; petitioner granted 15 days notice before arrest and directed authority to consider representation.

Kheta Ram 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. 366/2019

¶3

Kheta Ram S/o Bharu Ram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Nayi Kamthayi, Gram Panchayati Kamthayi, Tehsil And Police Station- Sindhari, District Barmer.

¶4

Nawala Ram S/o Sidha Ram, Aged About 48 Years, Profession- Government Teacher, R/o Nayi Kamthayi, Gram Panchayati Kamthayi, Tehsil And Police StationSindhari, District Barmer.

¶5

Moola Ram S/o Sidha Ram, Aged About 65 Years, Retired Forest Guard, R/o Bedpana, Gram Panchayati Sindhari Chourisa, Police Station Sindhari, District Barmer.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

Sho, Police Station, Sindhari, District Barmer.

¶10

Amra Ram S/o Patta Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Nayi Kamthayi, Sindhari, District Barmer.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.M. Dhera For Respondent(s) : Mr. JP Bhardwaj, Public Prosecutor

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

23/01/2019

¶16

The petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No.143/2018 lodged qua them at P.S. Sindhari, District Barmer for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 417, 419, 420 and 120-B IPC.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioners submit that the FIR impugned is nothing but an outcome of election dispute whereby it is alleged Heero Devi, who was defeated candidate of Sarpanch

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CRLMP-366/2019]

¶20

of Gram Panchayat, Nayi Kamthayi. The allegation is that she has forged her TC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are mere relatives of Heero Devi and the charges of wrongly declaration and giving of false information is only against Heero Devi, who was a candidate for Sarpanch post.

¶21

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 the issue.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-366/2019]

¶26

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 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.

¶27

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶28

Sanjay

Kheta Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kheta Ram 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

Neelu Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Vs State of Rajasthan

Nagendra Rawal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanta Vs State

Kamlesh Sankhla Vs State

Bajranglal Vs State of Rajasthan