Ashu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No.100/2017 lodged at P.S. Gudamalani, District Barmer for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 454, 323, 354(Kha), 506 and 509 IPC.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is cousin sister of the petitioner. She alleged that on 22.12.2017 petitioner borrowed Rs.8 Lacs from her and later has not returned the amount with interest. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that a bare reading of the FIR goes to show that no criminal offence is made out and the nature of allegations do not warrant any criminal prosecution.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wants to submit a representation alongwith all the relevant documents before the concerned investigating authority to redress her issue.

Learned Public Prosecutor assures this Court that if the petitioner submits a representation along with 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 petitioner 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 petitioner, then the petitioner shall be given 15 days' notice before making such arrest. The petitioner shall be required to join the investigation. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court again, in case need arises.