Vijay Peshwani vs State And Ors

Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.0610/2018 lodged at Police Station Hanumangarh Junction for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whole dispute is regarding to a plot being sold to the non-petitioner No.2, in which, it was alleged by the complainant that nature of the plot was not residential as claimed by the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown the FIR, in which, the petitioner offered to return the amount to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- against the original purchase of Rs.2,31,000/- but due to seizure of his account, the same could not be done. It is also contended that the petitioner is prepared to give the complete amount of the non-petitioner No.2.

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. The petitioner shall be required to join the investigation. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court again, in case need arises.