JUDGMENT :

Devendra Kachhawaha, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking police protection of life and personal liberty and fair investigation in FIR No. 71 dated 17.01.2021, Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S) & 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conferencing stated that although the petitioner has not been named in the questioned FIR yet, the Police Official(s) has issued notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner only at the instance of either the complainant or the accused meaning thereby that there is a grave threat to the petitioner's life and well being. He stated that the petitioner apprehends a physical attack of grave nature from both the accused and the complainant as they seem to be in connivance of each other. While arguing other Criminal Misc. Petition (No. 2837/2021), learned counsel for the petitioner stated that despite not named in the questioned FIR, the petitioner has been called upon to appear before the Investigating Officer. He also stated that the Police is abusing its powers conferred under Section 160 Cr.P.C., calling the petitioner by issuing notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C., therefore, it is clear that the said notice is wholly vague and a clear manifestation of abuse of power. He further stated that considering the fact that the petitioner is neither connected with the complainant nor with the accused, thus, it is very much clear that fair and impartial investigation is not being conducted into the questioned FIR. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that in the present the questioned FIR was registered on 17.01.2021 and the petitioner, a senior citizen, has been called upon to appear before the Investigation Officer by issuing the notice on 28.05.2021 even during the ongoing lock-down imposed to contain the second wave of COVID-19.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that appropriate orders/directions may be issued.

4. In view of the order intended to be passed in both these petitions being non-prejudicial to the respondents, no notices are required against them.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conferencing and the learned Public Prosecutor, present-in-person. Perused the material available on record.

6. So far as the aspect of providing police protection is concerned, it is well settled legal position as expounded by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2522, S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600, Indra Sarma vs. VKV Sarma, reported in (2013) 15 SCC 755 : 2014 (1) RLW 627 (SC) and Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan KM, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 368 that personal life and liberty has to be protected, except according to procedure established by law as mandated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and further as per Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, that every police officer is duty bound to protect the life and liberty of the citizens.

7. So far as the aspect of fair and impartial investigation in the FIR in question is concerned, in the cases of Manoj Kumaria Shankaria vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2014 (3) Raj. Cric 965, Narayan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2013 (1) Crl.L.R. 264 and Aziza Begum vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2012 (1) RLW 835 wherein, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that a fair and proper investigation is always conducive to the ends of justice and for establishing the rule of law.

8. Similarly, in the cases of Shyam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2015 (3) Crl.L.R. 1375 and Gopal Nath vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2015 (4) Crl.L.R. 1617, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh