Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pankaj Kumar Singh vs State on 1 December, 2021
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5462/2021
1. Pankaj Kumar Singh S/o Sh. Chhotelal Prajapati, Aged
About 36 Years, B/c Prajapati, R/o Konch Police Station,
Janpad, Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Smt. Ganga Devi W/o Sh. Chhotelal Prajapati, Aged About
79 Years, B/c Prajapati, R/o Konch Police Station, Janpad,
Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh.
3. Smt. Kiran W/o Sh. Raj Kumar, Aged About 46 Years,
R/o.H.no. 901/1, New Tilpat Colony, Tilpat, Amarnagar,
Faridabad, Haryana-121003.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State, Through Pp
2. Smt. Hemvati W/o Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh, B/c Prajapat,
R/o 386B, New Market, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwas Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mool Singh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
01/12/2021
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned public
prosecutor.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
marriage was solemnized between the petitioner No.1 Pankaj
Kumar Singh and the respondent No.2 in the year 2020 and
because of the marital discord, the respondent No.2 has filed the
present FIR against the petitioners. The allegation levelled against
the petitioners are far from truth. He submits that the present
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-5462/2021]
case is of pure marital discord between the parties. He relies
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the
case of Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bihar and Anr. reported in
(2014)8 SCC 273 & AIR 2014 SC 2756 and submits that till
date, the petitioners have not been served a notice under Section
41 Cr.P.C.. He further submits that the petitioners are ready and
willing to cooperate with the investigating agency and submit all
documents showing their innocence in the matter.
Per contra, learned public prosecutor submits that as per the
factual report received, the petitioners have not appeared before
the Investigating Officer and the Shtridhan is also to be recovered
from the petitioners.
The factual report produced by learned public prosecutor is
taken on record.
I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and I
have gone through the factual report as well as case diary
produced before me.
It is true that the statement of the respondent No.2 is on
record supporting the allegations levelled in the FIR but at the
same time, it is true that the petitioner No.1 solemnized the
marriage with the complainant/respondent No.2 and because of
the differences and marital discord between them, the present FIR
has been registered.
Considering the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the case diary, this Court is of the opinion that the
Investigating Officer is directed to give a notice to the petitioners
under Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C. before ten days of arresting
them in case their custodial interrogation is required in the light of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5462/2021]
V/s State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2014)8 SCC 273 &
AIR 2014 SC 2756.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
27-SanjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
