Disposed

Anita Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Jan 2019CRLMP/37/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a petition for quashing an FIR lodged against the petitioner, a former Sarpanch, alleging misuse of office. The court granted limited protection from arrest based on assurances given by the Public Prosecutor to conduct a fair investigation and adhere to legal procedures within a specified timeline.

What did the court decide?

The misc. petition was disposed with directions to the investigating authority to consider representations submitted within ten days strictly in accordance with law and grant limited protection from a

Anita Chaudhary Vs State of Rajasthan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 37/2019

Anita Chaudhary

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan & Anr.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP

¶9

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶10

Order

¶11

21/01/2019

¶12

Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.15/2018 lodged at Police Station Salaser, District Churu for the offences under Sections 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC qua the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner is a lady Sarpanch of village Ginraser from 2011 to 2014. The FIR has been lodged with an allegation of misusing the office.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in an earlier FIR No.86/2017 regarding the allegation of similar nature, the petitioner was released on anticipatory bail vide S.B. Criminal Bail No.790/2018 on 23.01.2018. In allegation of similar nature, another FIR was lodged bearing No.15/2018 in which also the anticipatory bail was granted by this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Criminal Bail No.3709/2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter these three FIRs bearing No.15/2018,

¶15

[CRLMP-37/2019]

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

76/2018 and 118/2018 have been filed at Police Station Salaser, District Churu.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that political victimization is the reasons of these allegations, as the petitioner was holding the post of Sarpanch and already two cases after being examined by this Hon’ble court, anticipatory bails were granted.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner being a lady willing to appear before the investigating officer to cooperate with the investigation. It is also contended that Bhagirath Ram and Umaram are the complainant in all the four FIRs.

¶20

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.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor assures this Court if the petitioner joined the investigation, fair and transparent investigating shall be conducted after taking the petitioner’s stand on record.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor also 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

¶24

[CRLMP-37/2019]

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

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.

¶27

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 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.

¶28

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶29

107-Sudheer/-

Anita Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Chaudhary 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

Champa Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Au Small Finance Bank Vs State

Rinki Kumari @ Rinku Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Javed Vs State

Anita Chaudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Sikander Khan Vs State of Rajasthan