Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Vikram Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:3442) on 16 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:3442]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 9040/2024
1. Vikram Singh S/o Shri Pukh Raj Ji, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o Ludrada, Tehsil Siwana, Dist. Balotra,raj.
2. Kailash Kumar S/o Shri Pukh Raj Ji, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Ludrada, Tehsil Siwana, Dist. Balotra,raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Arjun Singh S/o Shri Nen Singh, R/o Ludrada, Tehsil
Siwana, Dist. Balotra,raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Jamtaram
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shriram Choudhary, AGA
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Moti Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
16/01/2025
1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR No.96/2024
registered at Police Station Siwana, District Balotra for the
offences under Sections 341, 323, 427 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material as made available to this Court as well as gone through
the niceties of the matter.
3. There are allegations in the FIR regarding beating to the
victim-respondent No.2 and restraining him from moving in a
certain direction, which is disclosing the commission of a
cognizable offence; thus, no case for quashing of the FIR is made
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:40:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3442] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-9040/2024]
out as an FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of bald assertion
of false allegations.
4. Since the offences alleged against the petitioners are triable
by the Court of Magistrate and do not contain the maximum
punishment of more than 7 years, therefore, the provisions
contained under Sections 41 and 41-A of the Cr.P.C. are applicable
mutatis mutandis and the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported
in AIR 2014 SC 2756 applies squarely in the present case;
hence, it is deemed appropriate to direct the Investigating Officer
that in the event, the offences are found to be proved and the
arrest of the petitioners is absolutely necessary, then instead of
affecting arrest at once, a prior notice of 1 month shall be given to
them, so that they may exercise their legitimate rights.
5. Needless to say that petitioners are not precluded from
raising their issues before the trial court at appropriate stage.
6. With these directions and observations, this criminal misc.
petition as well as stay petition are disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.63
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:40:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)