Disposed

Rawal Chand v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Oct 2021CRLMP/4330/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR naming him as a possible abettor in a suicide case. High Court held early conclusion of non-involvement is barred during investigation but allowed petitioner submit representation to investigating officer per similar precedent.

What did the court decide?

Direction to move representation to Investigating Officer; liberty to file fresh petition if required.

Rawal Chand Vs State of Rajasthan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4330/2021

¶3

Rawal Chand S/o Sh. Harkha Ram, Aged About 21 Years, Jasodo Ki Beri, Pareu, P.s. Gida, Dist. Barmer (Raj.). At Present Hostel Warden B.r. Public School Bhaniyana, Dist. Jaisalmer (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

Aaidanram S/o Heera Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Bhanu Nagar, Bhikhodai, P.s. Phalsund, Dist. Jaisalmer (Raj.).

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Binja Ram Jajra
For Complainant(s)	: Mr. Naman Mohnot
For State	: Mr. Gaurav Singh,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

18/10/2021

¶13

Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition seeking quashing of F.I.R. No.09/2021.

¶14

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was only a warden of the hostel. There is no allegation against him that he has abetted the commission of the offence of suicide. It is also contended that petitioner was arrested and was given benefit of bail. Till date, there is no evidence on record to implicate the petitioner for the alleged offence.

¶15

Counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the misc. petition. It is contended that the manager/owner of the hostel has also filed misc. petition before the High Court bearing Criminal Misc. Petition No.3123/2021 "Om

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLMP-4330/2021]

¶18

Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr." which was disposed by the High Court on 12.07.2021, permitting the petitioner therein to move appropriate representation before the Investigating Officer. It is also contended that petitioner's name is appearing in the F.I.R. and the complainant has mentioned in the F.I.R. that he has doubt that the present petitioner is also involved in the alleged offence of suicide.

¶19

Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on "Narayan Malhari Thorat Vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat And Anr.": Criminal Appeal No.1487/2018 decided by the Apex Court on 28.11.2018, wherein the Apex Court has held that when the investigation was yet to be completed and charge-sheet, if any, was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on part of the accused-respondent.

¶20

I have considered the contentions.

¶21

F.I.R. discloses commission of cognizable offence. Petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and the complainant has mentioned that he has doubt that petitioner is involved in the case. The matter is still at the stage of investigation and this Court at this stage cannot come to the conclusion that petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence so as to invoke the inherent powers.

¶22

In view of the judgment of the "Narayan Malhari Thorat Vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat And Anr." (supra), this Court does not deem it proper to entertain the present petition at this stage when the matter is still at the stage of investigation. However taking note of the fact that in a case pertaining to similar situated co-accused, High Court has disposed the petition and has permitted the petitioner therein to move appropriate

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLMP-4330/2021]

¶25

representation to the Investigating Officer, hence, the present misc. petition deserves to be disposed on same terms. 8. Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Petition is disposed of. Stay application also stands disposed. Direction is given to the petitioner to move appropriate representation to the concerned Investigating Officer. Investigating Officer shall consider the representation strictly in accordance with law and petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh petition, in case, need arises.

¶26

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶27

Arti Sharma/ 22

Rawal Chand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rawal Chand 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamta Vs State of Rajasthan

Monika Vs State of Rajasthan

Chena Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sugana Vs State of Rajasthan

Jabra Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Pooja Rinwa Vs State of Rajasthan