Prakash Bhansali vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9754 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

..

S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2836/2021

Prakash Bhansali S/o Shri Ganpat Bhansali, Aged About 65 Years, R/o C-151, Behind Dhariwal Tent House, Laxmi Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan through PP

2. Station House Officer, Police Station, Udaimandir, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2837/2021 Prakash Bhansali S/o Shri Ganpat Bhansali, Aged About 65 Years, R/o C-151, Behind Dhariwal Tent House, Laxmi Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan through PP

2. Station House Officer, Police Station, Udaimandir, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Chhangani through VC. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA (VACATION JUDGE)

Order

08/06/2021

The petitioner has preferred both these Criminal

Miscellaneous Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking police

protection of life and personal liberty and fair investigation in FIR

No. 71 dated 17.01.2021, Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur,

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-2836/2021]

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406,

467, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(R),

3(1)(S) & 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video

conferencing stated that although the petitioner has not been

named in the questioned FIR yet, the Police Official(s) has issued

notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner only at the

instance of either the complainant or the accused meaning

thereby that there is a grave threat to the petitioner's life and well

being. He stated that the petitioner apprehends a physical attack

of grave nature from both the accused and the complainant as

they seem to be in connivance of each other. While arguing other

Criminal Misc. Petition (No. 2837/2021), learned counsel for the

petitioner stated that despite not named in the questioned FIR,

the petitioner has been called upon to appear before the

Investigating Officer. He also stated that the Police is abusing its

powers conferred under Section 160 Cr.P.C., calling the petitioner

by issuing notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C., therefore, it is clear

that the said notice is wholly vague and a clear manifestation of

abuse of power. He further stated that considering the fact that

the petitioner is neither connected with the complainant nor with

the accused, thus, it is very much clear that fair and impartial

investigation is not being conducted into the questioned FIR.

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that in the present

the questioned FIR was registered on 17.01.2021 and the

petitioner, a senior citizen, has been called upon to appear before

the Investigation Officer by issuing the notice on 28.05.2021 even

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-2836/2021]

during the ongoing lock-down imposed to contain the second wave

of COVID-19.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that appropriate

orders/directions may be issued.

In view of the order intended to be passed in both these

petitions being non-prejudicial to the respondents, no notices are

required against them.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through

video conferencing and the learned Public Prosecutor, present-in-

person. Perused the material available on record.

So far as the aspect of providing police protection is

concerned, it is well settled legal position as expounded by Hon'ble

the Supreme Court in the cases of Lata Singh Vs. State of UP,

reported in AIR 2006 SC 2522, S. Khushboo Vs.

Kanniammal, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600, Indra Sarma

Vs. VKV Sarma, reported in (2013) 15 SCC 755 and Shafin

Jahan Vs. Asokan KM, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 368 that

personal life and liberty has to be protected, except according to

procedure established by law as mandated under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India and further as per Section 29 of the

Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, that every police officer is duty bound

to protect the life and liberty of the citizens.

So far as the aspect of fair and impartial investigation in the

FIR in question is concerned, in the cases of Manoj Kumaria

(4 of 5) [CRLMP-2836/2021]

Shankaria Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in

2014(3) Raj. Cric 965, Narayan Singh Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2013(1) Crl.L.R. 264 and Aziza

Begum Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2012

(1) RLW 835 wherein, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that a

fair and proper investigation is always conducive to the ends of

justice and for establishing the rule of law.

Similarly, in the cases of Shyam Singh Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2015(3) Crl.L.R.1375 and

Gopal Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in

2015(4) Crl.L.R. 1617, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the

Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar

& Anr., reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, also the petitioner

therein was permitted to submit a representation before the

Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer was directed to

consider the documents before forming any opinion.

Learned Public Prosecutor assures this Court that fair and

transparent investigation shall be made and in case, the petitioner

submits a representation along with all the relevant documents

before the Commissioner, Jodhpur within a period of 10 days from

today then, the same shall be considered at the time of

investigation.

In view of the observations foregoing, both these Criminal

Misc. Petitions are disposed of, with the direction that as regards

fair and impartial investigation in the questioned FIR, the

petitioner shall send a copy of the representation along with all

(5 of 5) [CRLMP-2836/2021]

relevant documents to the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur and/or

Station House Officer concerned within a period of 10 days from

today through e-mail and on receipt of the same, the

Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur and/or the Station House Officer

concerned shall consider the same and conduct fair investigation

in the matter, strictly in accordance with law. So far as prayer for

providing police protection, the petitioner shall be at liberty to

make a complainant against the persons(s) and if any specific

complainant is filed by the petitioner, the Station House Officer

concerned shall consider the same and take appropriate steps in

accordance with law.

However, as a precautionary note, it is made clear that this

order shall not come in the way of the investigation of the

civil/criminal case, if any, and such case would take its own course

as per law.

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA), VJ 43-44-Mohan/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)