Pukhraj Jain vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24993)
2025 Latest Caselaw 10089 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pukhraj Jain vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24993) on 22 May, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:24993]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4219/2025

1.       Pukhraj Jain S/o Anandmal Jain, Aged About 48 Years, R/
         o Mutho Ka Baas, Choti Khatu, Teh. Didwana, Dist.
         Didwana Kuchaman, Raj.
2.       Payal Jain D/o Pukhraj Jain, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
         Khatu Khurd, Teh. Didwana, Dist. Didwana Kuchaman,
         Raj.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2.       Sanwarmal S/o Mahaveer Prasad, R/o Khatu Khurd,
         Khunkhuna, Dist. Didwana Kuchaman, Raj.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Shiv Singh Badgujar.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Shriram Choudhary, PP with
                                Mr. Ravindra Singh.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

22/05/2025

1. The instant criminal petition has been filed under Section

528 BNSS by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR

No.20/2025 lodged at Police Station Khunkhuna, District

Deedwana-Kuchaman, for the offence under Section 420 IPC.

2. The factual report dated 20.05.2025 received by the learned

Public Prosecutor from the office of the SHO, Police Station

Khunkhuna is taken on record.

3. 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.

[2025:RJ-JD:24993] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-4219/2025]

4. This Court, upon a perusal of the case file and the factual

report, prima facie finds that the offences alleged to have been

committed by the petitioners are either triable by a court of

Magistrate and/or do not contain the maximum punishment of

more than seven years, and keeping in mind the provisions

contained in Section 41, 41-A Cr.P.C. as well as the judgment

passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh

Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2014 SC 2756, the

dictum of which squarely apply mutatis mutandis to the present

case, it is directed that in case, the arrest of the petitioners is

found to be absolutely necessary by the Investigating Agencies,

instead of affecting the arrest of the petitioners at once, a prior

notice of 45 days shall be given to them so that they may exercise

their rights. Needless, to say that the petitioners are not precluded

from ventilating their grievances before this Court or trial Court if

occasion so arises at an appropriate stage.

5. With the aforesaid direction, the misc. petition filed under

Section 528 BNSS (482 Cr.P.C.) as well as stay application are

disposed of.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 97-Tikam/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)