Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pankaj Bishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:40712) on 1 October, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:40712]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Stay No. 6990/2024
Pankaj Bishnoi S/o Shri Ramlal Bishnoi, Aged About 26 Years, R/
o Village Saisar, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ramesh Kumar S/o Ranjeet Singh, R/o Hp Petrol Pump Ke
Pass, Jaipur Road, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. R.S. Bhati, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order
01/10/2024
1. Petitioner seeks issuance of directions to the respondents to
conduct fair inquiry/investigation regarding FIR No.123/2024
dated 04.04.2024, registered under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 486-C
and 489-E of IPC.
2. Heard.
3. Allegation in the FIR is that on 01.04.2024, a white Scorpio
car arrived and demanded filling of diesel worth Rs. 2,000. After
fueling, the accused handed the salesman ten Rs. 200 notes and
drove away. When the salesman became suspicious of the notes,
he showed them to the complainant, who then verified them with
the bank. The bank confirmed that the notes were counterfeit,
leading to the filing of the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner,
who is a practicing physician is being harassed merely because he
was seated in the Scorpio. He points out that the vehicle is not
[2024:RJ-JD:40712] (2 of 2) [RSTAY-6990/2024]
owned by the petitioner and it belongs to one Kailash Bishnoi. The
counsel further states that Kailash was the one driving the car and
was the one responsible for making the payment, if any.
5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, given
that there is neither any allegation against the petitioner of any
kind, direct or indirect, nor is he even named in the FIR nor is
there any overt or covert role attributed to him with respect to
counterfeiting of the currency, it is deemed appropriate that civil
rights of the petitioner deserve to be protected. Reference may be
had to Apex Court judgment rendered in Arnesh Kumar Vs.
State of Bihar and Anr : (2014) 8 SCC 273].
6. Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to
join the investigation. However, if during the investigation, in case
any incriminating material of such nature is found against the
petitioner, which prima facie is suggestive of any cognizable
offence committed by him, warranting his custody, then a prior
notice under Section 35 of BNSS shall be given to him so as to
enable him to seek legal remedy in accordance with the law.
7. Conversely, it is made clear that in case there is no
incriminating material found against the petitioner, appropriate
report be filed before the competent court expeditiously.
8. The instant petition is accordingly disposed of.
9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
174-DhananjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
