SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohammed Rayess vs State on 5 September, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4679/2019

1. Mohammed Rayess S/o Kalu Mohammed, Aged About 31
Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Shindi Sahab Jado Ka
Mohalla, Killa Road, Inside The Nagouri Gate, Jodhpur.

2. Smt. Hasmat @ Munni W/o Kalu Mohammed, Aged About
58 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Shindi Sahab Jado Ka
Mohalla, Killa Road, Inside The Nagouri Gate, Jodhpur.

3. Smt. Mumtaj W/o Mohd. Rafiq, Aged About 34 Years, By
Caste Muslim, R/o Shindi Sahab Jado Ka Mohalla, Killa
Road, Inside The Nagouri Gate, Jodhpur.

4. Smt. Yasmeen W/o Mohd. Sokin, Aged About 22 Years, By
Caste Muslim, R/o Shindi Sahab Jado Ka Mohalla, Killa
Road, Inside The Nagouri Gate, Jodhpur.

5. Smt. Sehnaj W/o Mohammed Arif D/o Kalu Mohammed,
Aged About 33 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Kaga Kagdi,
Bhil Bhasti, Jodhpur.

6. Smt. Sultana W/o Mohd. Sakir D/o Kalu Mohammed,
Aged About 27 Years, By Caste Muslim, R/o Near Purana
Kabristaan, Karbala Colony, Udaimandir, Jodhpur.

—-Petitioners
Versus

1. State, Through P.p.

2. Smt. Monika W/o Mohammed Rayees, Kille Khana, Killa
Ke Ghati, Solanki Dairy, Jodhpur.

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.MA Abbasi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mukhtiyar Khan, PP.

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

05/09/2019

1. Petitioners have preferred the present misc. petition

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. claiming the following relief :-

(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 08:59:23 PM)

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-4679/2019]

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the petition
of the petition may kindly be allowed and FIR
No.112/2019, police station Mahila Thana East, Under
Sectionsection 498A, Section406, Section323 IPC may Kindly be quashed and
set-aside qua petitioners in the interest of justice.”

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that for the matrimonial allegations, there has been over

implication of the family members and they have been arrayed as

accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners further

submits that the petitioner no.1 husband is ready to keep his

legally wedded wife with him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits

that the petitioners want to submit a representation alongwith all

the relevant documents before the concerned investigating

authority to redress the issue.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor assures this Court that if the

petitioners submit a representation along with all the necessary

documents before the concerned investigating authority within a

period of ten days from today, then the same shall be considered

and decided strictly in accordance with law, before completing the

investigation.

5. In light of the aforesaid assurance given by learned

Public Prosecutor, the present misc. petition is disposed of with a

direction to the concerned investigating authority that in case the

petitioners submit a representation along with all the necessary

documents before it within a period of ten days from today, then

the same shall be considered and decided before completing the

investigation, strictly in accordance with law and as per the

assurance given by the learned Public Prosecutor.

(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 08:59:23 PM)

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-4679/2019]

6. In the peculiar facts of the case, it would be

appropriate to grant protection from arrest to the petitioners no.2

to 6 only as it will be a waste of energy and resources of the Police

Department to run after the accused to complete the related

investigation and without protection it would also cause

unnecessary hardship to the accused, who deserves a basic

opportunity of explaining his case before the Investigating

Authority without fear of arrest. The Investigating Officer,

however, shall have the liberty of custodial interrogation after

giving 15 days’ notice before arrest if required. In the interest of

justice and the facts and circumstances noted by this Court, the

limited protection is justified. Therefore, if during the

investigation, the concerned investigating authority needs to

arrest the petitioners no.2 to 6, then the petitioners no.2 to 6 shall

be given 15 days’ notice before making such arrest. The

petitioners no.2 to 6 shall be required to join the investigation.

The petitioners no.2 to 6 shall be at liberty to approach this Court

again, in case need arises.

7. The stay petition also stands disposed of.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

230-S.Phophaliya/-

(Downloaded on 05/09/2019 at 08:59:23 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation