Disposed

Vimal Dharu v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Jan 2019CRLMP/4535/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-bench order disposed of two connected criminal miscellaneous petitions arising from the same FIR involving offences under IPC and SC/ST Act. The court directed the investigating officer to consider representations of both complainant and accused.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Investigating Officer to consider representations of both parties and give 15 days' notice before arrest of accused-petitioners.

Vimal Dharu 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. 4535/2018

¶3

Vimal Dharu S/o Bhagirath, Aged About 34 Years, Valmiki Mahalla Napasar Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

SHO, Napasar, Bikaner

¶8

The Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner

¶9

Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Raj.

¶10

Ashok Singh Bhati S/o Roop Singh Bhati, Aged About 25 Years, Ward No. 31 Napasar Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner Raj.

¶11

Nanu Ram Pandiya S/o Sohan Lal Pandiya, Aged About 55 Years, Ward No. 34 Napasar Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner Raj.

¶12

Pawan S/o Kailash Chandra Ji, Aged About 22 Years, Ward No. 18 Napasar Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner Raj.

¶13

Manoj Kumar S/o Sawai Raj Ji, Aged About 45 Years, Ward No. 18 Napasar Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner Raj.

¶14

Santosh Kumar S/o Hari Ram Ji, Aged About 30 Years, Ward No. 32 Napasar Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner Raj.

¶15

Poonam Chand Bhargav S/o Surja Ram Ji, Aged About 40 Years, Ward No. 31 Napasar Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner Raj.

¶16

Vasudev Saraswat S/o Kishan Lal Ji, Aged About 25 Years, Ward No. 21 Napasar Tehsil And Distt. Bikaner Raj.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

Connected With

¶19

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2968/2018

¶20

Ashok Singh Bhati S/o Roop Singh Bhati, Aged About 25 Years, Ward No. 31 Napasar, Tehsil And District Bikaner,

¶21

Nanu Ram Pandiya S/o Sohan Lal Pandiya, Aged About 55 Years, Ward No. 34 Napasar, Tehsil And District Bikaner,

¶22

Pawan S/o Kailash Chandraji, Aged About 22 Years, Ward No. 18 Napasar, Tehsil And District Bikaner,

¶23

Manoj Kumar S/o Sawal Ramji Vyas, Aged About 45 Years, Ward No. 33 Napasar, Tehsil And District Bikaner,

¶24

Santosh Kumar S/o Hari Ramji Bohra, Aged About 30

¶25

(2 of 3)

¶26

[CRLMP-4535/2018]

¶27

Years, Ward No. 32 Napasar, Tehsil And District Bikaner,

¶28

Poonam Chand Bhargav S/o Surja Ramji, Aged About 40 Years, Ward No. 31 Napasar, Tehsil And District Bikaner,

¶29

Vasudev Saraswat S/o Kishan Lalji Saraswat, Aged About 25 Years, Ward No. 21 Napasar, Tehsil And District Bikaner,

¶30

----Petitioners

¶31

Versus

¶32

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶33

----Respondent

¶34

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Prasad Singaria Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari with Mr. Manas Khatri For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Panwar, Public Prosecutor

¶35

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶36

Order

¶37

02/01/2019

¶38

Both these misc. petitions i.e. CRLMP 4535/2018 & 2968/2018 are arising out of one and the same FIR, being FIR No.40/2018, Police Station Napasar, District Bikaner lodged for offence under Sections 323, 341 & 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, 1989. CRLMP No.4535/2018 is for fair and impartial investigation in the said FIR, whereas CRLMP No.2968/2018 is for quashing the FIR.

¶39

Counsel for accused submits that in pursuance of earlier order passed by this Court they have already submitted themselves for investigation, which is going on.

¶40

Counsel for the complainant submits that investigation is going on and respondent-State may be directed to conduct the investigation fairly.

¶41

(3 of 3)

¶42

[CRLMP-4535/2018]

¶43

Since both these petitions pertains to the same FIR, this Court while disposing of both aforesaid misc. petition deems it just and proper to direct Investigating Officer to consider the representation of both the parties (complainant as well as the accused) while completing the investigation. If during the investigation, the concerned investigating authority needs to arrest the accused-petitioners, then the accused persons shall be given 15 days’ notice before making such arrest. The accused persons shall be required to join the investigation. The petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court again, in case need arises.

¶44

(Dr. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶45

Sanjay

Vimal Dharu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Dharu 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

Gagandeep Kaur Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar and Anr. Vs State

Jagdish Chandra Pandwal Vs State and Anr.

Chatar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Birbal Vs State of Rajasthan

Champalal Vs State of Rajasthan