Ram Kanwar vs State And Ors

The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. claiming the following relief:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and impugned FIR No.11/2016 P.S. Kotwali, Jalore qua the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420 and 120-B IPC may kindly be quashed and set aside and further proceedings in pursuant thereof, may kindly be stayed."

The allegation against the present petitioner is that the petitioner alongwith other office-bearers of Cooperative Society committed cheating and fraud with the present respondent, who deposited their hard-earned money in the accounts of the Cooperative Society but the same has not been returned back to them.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset, submits that the petitioner demitted office of the Cooperative Society in question in October, 2012 and the present FIR has been lodged in the year 2016. It is also contended that since the petitioner had demitted the office long time before the FIR was lodged, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the act of Cooperative Society upon which the petitioner is not having any control.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner does not have a right of seeking quashing of the FIR and at best if the petitioner has any defense against the allegation made then the petitioner may present the same before the investigating officer, who shall proceed strictly in accordance with law to conduct the investigation accordingly.

This Court takes note of the fact that these are multiple FIRs and in some of the FIRs, the name of the petitioner is there whereas in other FIRs her name is not there. The reference to the present petitioner in the FIR is as Chairman of the Cooperative Society whereas we have taken note of the pleadings supported by the affidavit and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had demitted the office before October, 2012.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner wants 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 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.