Partly allowed

Ramesh Kumar Kumawat v. State

Rajasthan HC11 Feb 2021CRLMP/1006/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging matrimonial offence. Under direction of the Public Prosecutor, proceedings were adjourned for 15 days to examine a representation. Limited protection from arrest was granted subject to furnishing documents.

What did the court decide?

The misc. petition was disposed of with a direction to allow 15 days to submit a representation; limited protection from arrest for 15 days was granted.

Ramesh Kumar Kumawat Vs State — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1006/2021

¶3

Ramesh Kumar Kumawat S/o Shri Bhura Ram, Aged About 50 Years, Gali No. 10, Karvenagar Near Dant Mandir, Karvenagar, Pune (Maharashtra).

¶4

Leela W/o Sh. Ramesh, Aged About 43 Years, Gali No. 10, Karvenagar Near Dant Mandir, Karvenagar, Pune (Maharashtra).

¶5

Mukesh S/o Sh. Ramesh, Aged About 23 Years, Gali No. 10, Karvenagar Near Dant Mandir, Karvenagar, Pune (Maharashtra).

¶6

Bhagu W/o Sh. Kanji Kumawat, Aged About 45 Years, Tevli Kala, Pali (Raj.).

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State, Through P.p.

¶10

Smt. Rekha Malviya D/o Mohanlal W/o Champalal, Subhashpura, Bikaner (Raj.).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushal Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

11/02/2021

¶16

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

¶17

The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No.33/2020 lodged at P.S. Mahila Thana, Bikaner

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR alleges matrimonial offence upon far relatives.

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CRLMP-1006/2021]

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners, thus, submits that the petitioners want 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 petitioners submit a representation along with all the necessary documents before the concerned investigating authority within a period of fifteen 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 petitioners submit a representation along with all the necessary documents before it within a period of fifteen 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 petitioners 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 unnecessary hardship to the accused, who deserves a basic opportunity of explaining their 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.

¶25

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1006/2021]

¶26

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

¶27

The stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶28

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶29

233-Jitender/-

Ramesh Kumar Kumawat v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Kumawat v. State

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

Vena Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Champa Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalita Vs State

Mukesh Joshi Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kamlendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Parshuram Vs State