Aarti Kanwar & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr

The petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No.469/2018 lodged at P.S. Mahamandir, District Jodhpur for the offence under Sections 323, 354 and 509 IPC.

Counsel for the petitioners submit that due to matrimonial conflict the petitioner no.1 earlier lodged FIR bearing No.26/14 for offence under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and thereafter a complaint was forwarded by the petitioner no.1 to Air Officer Commanding, AF STN, New Delhi seeking redressal of matrimonial dispute from respondent no.2's son, who is an Air Force personnel.

Counsel for the petitioners demonstrated from complaint dated 06.8.2018 that present FIR is nothing but in counter-blast to the complaint filed by petitioner no.1 to to the Air Officer Commanding, AF STN, New Delhi.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners want to submit a representation alongwith all the relevant documents before the concerned investigating authority to redress the issue.

Learned Public Prosecutor assures this Court that if the petitioners submit a representation alongwith 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.

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 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.

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 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 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.