Disposed

Bharat Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Aug 2024CRLMP/903/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR under Rajasthan Excise Act, claiming he had sold the vehicle prior to the alleged offense. Court declined summary quashing at nascent stage but directed verification of sale claims and stayed coercive steps against petitioner pending verification.

What did the court decide?

Stay on coercive steps against petitioner pending verification of sale of vehicle by Investigating Officer.

Bharat Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:32757]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 903/2024

¶4

Bharat Kumar S/o Shri Gova Bhai, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 181 Nava Mohalla Kalera Daiswada Sidhpur Patan Gujrat

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Prabhu Lal S/o Unknown, R/o Jhuthari Kherwara Udaipur Rajasthan

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms.	Kiran Dudi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Gaurav Singh - PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

¶12

Order (Oral)

¶13

06/08/2024

¶14

Petitioner seeks quashing of an FIR No.0293/2022 dated 22/08/2022 registered at Police Station Bichhiwara, District Dungarpur for the alleged offences under Sections 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that a Maruti Swift Car without, number plate was found at Mauza Talaiya Ghat. Upon search of the car, two number plates and a plastic bag inside the cabin box, containing a total 9 bundles of currency notes, amounting to Rs.2,29,000/- and liquor bottles were also found. Since no documents for transporting liquor were found, an FIR for the offenses under Sections 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1960 was registered.

¶16

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

[2024:RJ-JD:32757]

[CRLMP-903/2024]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle in question, bearing registration No.GJ01-KD-9994 was sold by the petitioner to S.K. Auto Consult, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad, Gujarat for a consideration of Rs.1,18,000/-. A sale deed agreement and delivery note dated 27.04.2022 was also duly executed in favour of Sundabhai Amritbhai Desai, Proprietor of S.K. Auto Consult, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad Gujarat. Thereafter, the said vehicle was sold by S.K. Auto Consult to Chauhan Haider Bhai for a consideration of Rs.1,24,000/- and a sale agreement/undertaking was executed on 01.05.2022. Haidar Bhai also sold the said vehicle to Chiman Kumar Babubhai Kaleva and an agreement/undertaking was executed on 13.06.2022. He further submits that though the petitioner was the original owner, but he had sold the vehicle to S.K. Auto Consult in the year 2022, which was subsequently sold twice over. Therefore, petitioner cannot be held responsible for any alleged offenses mentioned in the FIR and the same may be quashed.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer on the ground that investigation is still at a very nascent stage and any interference by this Court at this stage may impede the course to be adopted by the investigating officer. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, it does not appear to be a fit case to summarily quash the FIR at this nascent stage of investigation. 7. In the premise, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Officer to verify the factual averments contained in ground II of the petition, wherein it is specifically stated that petitioner is though the original owner, but he had sold the vehicle

[2024:RJ-JD:32757]

[CRLMP-903/2024]

(3 of 3)

way back in April, 2022. Not only that subsequently the said vehicle got sold twice over to subsequent two owners but some how despite the petitioner having signed the requisite documents for transfer of the vehicle, it continued to be in his name. In case the aforesaid averments are found correct, appropriate steps will be taken to delete the name of the petitioner from the array of accused. In the peculiar premise, till the verification is carried out, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. However, in case it is so found that the averments are not correct and petitioner is required to be interrogated in custody, then he shall be issued 30 days prior notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. (35 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) so as to enable him to seek his legal remedy in accordance with law.

¶26

All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶27

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶28

16-AK Chouhan/-

Bharat Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Kumar 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

Kantilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sushil Jain Vs Sunil Surupriya

Dayal Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Raj Vs State of Rajasthan

Hansraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Pooja Vs State of Rajasthan