Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Imran Ansar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5288 of 2021
Decided On : 18-11-2021
QUASHING - FIR - The court addressed the petitioner's request to quash an FIR for various IPC offenses, emphasizing the lack of direct allegations against the petitioner and the necessity for proper investigation procedures as per the Supreme Court's guidelines in Arnesh Kumar case, ultimately allowing the petitioner to present evidence of innocence before the Investigating Officer.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 0273/2021 for offenses under IPC Sections 341, 342, 323, 506 & 384, arguing he was not named in the FIR and had been falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and no specific allegations were made against him by co-accused. It directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and present evidence of his innocence.
Issues: Whether the FIR against the petitioner should be quashed given the absence of direct allegations and the need for a fair investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that an FIR can be quashed if there are no specific allegations against the accused, and emphasized the importance of following due process as outlined in the Arnesh Kumar judgment regarding custodial interrogation.
Result: The petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and provide evidence of his innocence, while ensuring compliance with procedural safeguards.
JUDGMENT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present Misc. Petiton under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing the F.I.R. No. 0273/2021 dated 29.07.2021 registered at Police Station Kothwali Pali, District Pali for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 506 & 384 of the IPC.
2. Heard.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR nor any overt act has been reported against him. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor on the strength of factual report submits that though the petitioner has not been named by the co-accused persons and no specific allegation has been made by the co-accused persons in their statements, however, it is reported that the petitioner would be paid Rs.20,000/-. He however, frankly submits that the payment of Rs.20,000/- is not stated to be in relation to the present loot or otherwise.
5. In the circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer by submitting all the documents showing his bona fides and innocence in the matter. If The Investigating Officer after investigation feels that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in the present case, he will give a notice of ten days under Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C before effecting the arrest of the petitioner in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar V/s State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 & AIR 2014 SC 2756.
6. Needless to say, the petitioner will co-operate with the Investigating Agency and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon to do so.
7. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
AI
An FIR may be quashed if the accused is not named and lacks specific allegations against them, highlighting the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards in criminal investigations.
The court can quash FIRs that are frivolous or motivated by ulterior motives, especially when the accused is not named in initial complaints.
The absence of the petitioner's name in the F.I.R. and lack of evidence warrant bail despite opposing arguments.
Criminal Law - Recovery of amount - Release of accused when evidence deficient - Sought for quash of FIR and Charge sheet - Exercise of extraordinary and inherent power of High Court - petitioner has....
The court upheld that bail can be granted in cases of similar circumstances, emphasizing the balance of justice and the necessity for cooperation in trial processes.
The court grants bail under Section 438 of the CrPC where the petitioner was not named in the FIR and lacked substantial evidence against him.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential to establish an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific and credible evidence to establish the commission of a cognizable offence, especially in cases involving allegations of....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
