Hemraj And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.28/2019 lodged at Police Station Rayla, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that petitioner No.1 solemnized marriage with the complainant in May 2000, as per the custom of Aata Sata, which is like, sister of the petitioner getting married to the brother of the respondent No.2 / complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the fall out of the marriage between the petitioner's sister and brother of the respondent No.2, triggered their deviation as well from the matrimonial institution. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the Additional District Judge, Gulabpura and only thereafter, the present FIR has been lodged.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits 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 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 petitioners submit 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 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.