Pratap Singh And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.167/2018 lodged at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Churu for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the foundation of the case is on the false averments and the matter pertains to a matrimonial dispute.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has demonstrated from the FIR that a major date of event of conciliation proceedings between the parties was 28.10.2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further demonstrated the copy of visa of petitioner No.3 which clearly indicates that he left the country from Mumbai Airport on 07.05.2018 and returned back on 04.11.2018 at New Delhi Airport. It is also contended that since the very pedestal of the case is doubtful, therefore, the petitioners would like to bring all his documents of his defence before the investigating officer.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 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.