Himmat Lal Salvi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25827)
2025 Latest Caselaw 10442 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Himmat Lal Salvi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25827) on 27 May, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:25827]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4270/2025

1.       Himmat Lal Salvi S/o Shri Vagta Ram, Aged About 28
         Years, R/o Vasni, Post Khatamala, Dist. Rajsamand.
2.       Vagta Ram Salvi S/o Shri Kesh Lal, Aged About 55 Years,
         R/o Vasni, Post Khatamala, Dist. Rajsamand.
3.       Kamlabai W/o Shri Vagta Ram Salvi, Aged About 50
         Years, R/o Vasni, Post Khatamala, Dist. Rajsamand.
4.       Jaggaram @ Jaggu S/o Shri Khemraj, Aged About 36
         Years, R/o Vasni, Post Khatamala, Dist. Rajsamand.
5.       Jitu Salvi S/o Shri Vagta Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
         Vasni, Post Khatamala, Dist. Rajsamand.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Sugna Salvi D/o Shri Mohan Lal Salvi, Aged About 27
         Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Adarsh Nagar, Rawatbhata, Tehsil
         Rawatbhata, Dist. Chittorgarh.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Dinesh Chandra Mali
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

27/05/2025

This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS filed by

the petitioners for quashing of the FIR No.81/2025, registered at

Police Station Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh for the offences

under Section 85 of BNS, 2023.

The factual report dated 23.05.2025 is taken on record.

[2025:RJ-JD:25827] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-4270/2025]

Heard learned counsel for the parties at bar. 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 petitioners and upon a careful perusal of the

impugned FIR and the factual report dated 23.05.2025, this Court

prima facie finds that the offences alleged to have been committed

by the petitioners are triable by Court of Magistrate or do not

contain the maximum imprisonment 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 the Hon'ble 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 is found to be absolutely necessary by

the Investigating Agencies, instead of affecting the arrest of the

petitioners at once, a prior notice of one month 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

grievance before the trial Court.

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 14-himanshu/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)