LAWS(RAJ)-2014-7-76

ASHISH V. ARORA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On July 01, 2014
Ashish V. Arora Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. petition has been filed by the accused petitioners with the prayer that FIR No. 26/2012 registered at police station Mahila Thana, Bharatpur on 11.1.2012 for the offence under sections 498A and 406 IPC, may be quashed and set aside and the investigation officer be directed not to arrest the petitioners. Further it is prayed that any other appropriate relief may be granted in favour of the petitioners and if this court comes to the conclusion that the FIR is to be investigated, then in the alternative the investigation may be changed from the present I.O. and direction be given to investigate the matter by an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police.

(2.) IT is pertinent to note that the instant misc. petition was filed in the month of July, 2012 and it came up for hearing before this court, for the first time, on 13.2.2014 after removal of defects on 21.1.2014 as pointed out by the registry at the time of filing of the petition. Earlier a criminal misc. petition (646/2012) was filed by the same accused petitioners in the month of February, 2012 with the following prayer:

(3.) IT was on 31.3.2014 that the petition was listed before this court, as similar other matters were also transferred from Court no. 7 which was not available. After hearing the parties a preliminary question arose, as to whether the accused could file another misc. petition by invoking the jurisdiction of the court under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR when similar petition in respect of same FIR had been decided. Learned counsel for the petitioners ultimately sought time to show the law on the point. Therefore, the matter was kept on 3.4.2014 at 1.15 p.m. in chambers for that limited purpose, because this court was having a regular roster in Division Bench. Thereafter on 3.4.2014, learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted the case law in support of his contention that a criminal misc. petition having been once decided, the impugned order can be challenged by way of another misc. petition.