Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Parmeshwar Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22939) on 13 May, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:22939]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3789/2025
1. Parmeshwar Lal S/o Prakash Chandra Mehta, Aged About
35 Years, Resident Of Noorda, Tehsil Maoli, District
Udaipur (Raj.)
2. Guddi Bai Alias Jaimala W/o Ashok Das, Aged About 38
Years, R/o Titedi, Pipli Chowk Gadhwala School, Maoli,
Udaipur, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (Raj.).
3. Rohit Nagda Alias Rinku Nagda S/o Prakash Chandra
Mehta,, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Noorda, Tehsil
Maoli, District Udaipur (Raj).
4. Durgesh S/o Shri Ghyandas,, Aged About 24 Years, Rio
Village Palan Kalla, Tehsil Maoli, P.s. Ghasa, District
Udaipur.
5. Kanhaiya Lal Ameta S/o Shri Narayan Lal,, Aged About 59
Years, R/o Village Itali, Tehsil Maoli, P.s. Vallabhnagar,
District Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Indra Devi Teli W/o Fatehlal Teli, R/o Titedi, Pipli Chowk
Gadhwala School, Maoli, Udaipur, District Udaipur (Raj).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madan Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
13/05/2025
1. The factual report dated 08.05.2025 received by the learned
Public Prosecutor from the office of SHO, P.S. Savina, District
Udaipur in taken on record.
[2025:RJ-JD:22939] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3789/2025]
2. 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.
3. There are specific allegations of cheating in the FIR against
the present petitioners which prima facie discloses the commission
of cognizable offence.
4. In the opinion of this Court, since the FIR discloses the
commission of cognizable offence thus, no case for quashing of
FIR is made out against the present petitioners as an FIR cannot
be quashed on the ground of bald assertions of the false
allegations.
5. This Court upon a perusal of the case file 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 one month shall be given to
him so that he may exercise his rights. Needless, to say that the
petitioners is not precluded from raising his grievance before the
trial Court.
[2025:RJ-JD:22939] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3789/2025]
6. 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
8-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
