Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Iqbal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25421) on 23 May, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:25421]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4240/2025
1. Iqbal Singh S/o Suba Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 07
Jandawali Hanumangarh Sadar Hanumangarh District
Hanumangarh.
2. Harpeet Singh S/o Iqbal Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
07 Jandawali Hanumangarh Sadar Hanumangarh District
Hanumangarh
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Gurpreet Singh S/o Gurdev Singh, R/o 07 Jwd Jandawali
Hanumangarh Sadar Hanumangarh District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Motsara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. Kamaldeep
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
23/05/2025
The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under
Section 528 BNSS for quashing of the FIR No.170/2025,
registered at Police Station Hanumangarh Sadar, District
Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 329(3), 324(4),
189(2), 303(2) of BNS.
The factual report dated 20.05.2025 received by the learned
Public Prosecutor from the office of SHO, Police Station
Hanumangarh Sadar, District Hanumangarh is taken on record.
[2025:RJ-JD:25421] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4240/2025]
The impugned FIR and the factual report dated 20.05.2025
submitted before this Court indicates that investigation in relation
to the impugned FIR has yet not been completed.
Drawing attention of the Court towards the impugned FIR,
learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the
offences alleged to have been committed by the present
petitioners are either triable by Court of Magistrate or do not
contain the maximum imprisonment of more than seven years,
and the provisions contained in Section 41, 41-A Cr.P.C. are
applicable and squarely applies mutatis mutandis in the present
case. Learned counsel prayed that an appropriate directions may
be issued to the Investigating Officer that in the event, the
offences are found to be proved and the arrest of the petitioner is
found to be absolutely necessary by the Investigating Agencies,
instead of effecting the arrest of the petitioner at once, a prior
notice of 45 days shall be given to them so that they may exercise
his legitimate rights.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at bar and perused the
material as made available to this Court and gone through the
niceties of the matter.
This Court while exercising the powers under Section 528
BNSS cannot minutely go into the correctness of the allegations
levelled against the petitioner and upon a perusal of the case file
and the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners for
issue of notice to the petitioners under Section 41 and 41A Cr.P.C
is just and reasonable. The present instant criminal misc. petition
is disposed of with a direction to the Investigation Officer to
comply with the provisions contained under Section 41 and 41-A
[2025:RJ-JD:25421] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4240/2025]
Cr.P.C. This Court keeping in mind the provisions contained in
Section 41, 41-A Cr.P.C. as well as the judgment passed by the
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 applies mutatis mutandis to the present case, it is
directed that in case, the arrest of the petitioners are found to be
absolutely necessary by the Investigating Agencies, instead of
effecting the arrest of the petitioners at once, a prior notice of 45
days shall be given to them so that they may exercise their
legitimate rights. Needless to say that the petitioners are not
precluded from raising their grievances before the trial Court, if
occasion so arises.
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
67-himanshu/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
