Gujarat High Court
Patel Ratilal Ambalal vs State Of Gujarat on 14 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 13/08/2025
Pronounced On : 14/11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 213 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PATEL RATILAL AMBALAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AM PAREKH(562) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LR PATHAN(2370) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 14/11/2025
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present revision application has been filed by the applicant-original accused no. 2 under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") challenging the order dated 29.03.2007 passed by the learned Principal Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kadi in Inquiry Case No. 14 of 2006, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences and ordered issuance of non- Page 1 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined bailable warrants against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The learned Magistrate has further directed the Registry to register the case by assigning a new criminal case number and ordered that Criminal Case No. 482 of 2005 be amalgamated with the present complaint and that both matters be tried together.
2. The factual background leading to the filing of the present revision application is that respondent No. 2 - the original complainant lodged an FIR being C.R. No. I-99 of 2004 at Kadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act against five accused persons, including the present petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No. 2. In the nutshell, original complainant - Jhala Bhupatsinh Kuvarsinh, lodged the said FIR on 20.03.2004. Page 2 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined
3. In a nutshell, it is alleged in the FIR that on the date of the incident, at about 5:30 p.m., the complainant was at his home when his cousin brother, Jenaji Pruthviraj, came to his house on a scooter and asked him to accompany him for purchasing goats. Thereafter, both of them proceeded on the scooter towards Charol Road, and at about 5:45 p.m., when they reached near Visatpura Chokdi, accused persons, namely Patel Munabhai Zaverbhai, Patel Ratilal Ambalal, Patel Bhemabhai Chaturbhai, Patel Mavjibhai Maganbhai and Patel Babubhai, Doctor, all residents of Village Visatpura intercepted them and started abusing Jenaji. Jenaji then drove the scooter forward, and both of them thereafter proceeded to Koyda Village, where, after making inquiries regarding goats, thereafter they returned at about 7:00 p.m. At around 7:50 p.m., when they reached near Visathpur Village, the same accused persons were present with a tractor. They stopped the scooter, and accused - Munnabhai, who was armed with a spade (locally known as "Kodali"), assaulted Jenaji on the head. Page 3 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Accused Bhutabhai Chaturbhai Patel also beat Jenaji with a stick, and the remaining accused Mavjibhai, Babubhai, and Ratilal, who were armed with sticks, also assaulted him. Thereafter, the accused started the tractor and ran it over Jenaji. They then threw him to the side of the road and fled away from the scene. The complainant then called his relatives, and upon reaching the place of the incident, they found that Jenaji had already expired, his skull was fractured, he had sustained multiple injuries, and the front portion of the scooter was damaged. Thereafter, the complainant informed Kadi Police Station and lodged the FIR against the said five accused persons. 3.1. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced and thereafter, on the request of the original complainant, the investigation was transferred to the Local Crime Branch, Mehsana. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge- sheet against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor Page 4 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Vehicles Act.
3.2 Thereafter, being aggrieved by filing of the charge- sheet, the original complainant moved an application before the learned Magistrate, Kadi, seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application by order dated 13.09.2005. The said order was challenged by the original complainant - present respondent No. 2, by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 84 of 2005 before the Sessions Court. Meanwhile, the complainant had also approached this Court by filing Special Criminal Application No. 296 of 2004. However, as the investigation had already been transferred to the Local Crime Branch and subsequently a charge-sheet came to be filed for the offences under Sections 304-A and 279 of the IPC and Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the said proceedings did not survive. The Sessions Court also rejected the Revision Application vide order dated 29.09.2005. While Page 5 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined rejecting the revision application, the Sessions Court merely observed that if the complainant still felt that his grievance had not been heard, he could record the statements of witnesses under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Court, or, in the alternative, he could file a private complaint and examine the witnesses. 3.3 Pursuant to the said observation, and after the revision was rejected on 29.09.2005, original complainant
- Jhala Bhupatsinh Kuvarsinh filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 31.03.2006 against the very same five accused persons who were named in the FIR which was registered at Kadi Police Station being C.R. No. I-99 of 2004. The private complaint was filed for the alleged offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. In paragraph 2 of the private complaint, the complainant reproduced the FIR lodged at Kadi Police Station. In paragraph 3, he stated that although the investigation had been carried out and further transferred to various officers, the police Page 6 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined had not recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their version. He again narrated that despite the FIR disclosing serious offences, the police filed a charge-sheet only for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A Indian Penal Code and Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the M.V. Act. He further stated that his application under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. had been rejected by the learned Magistrate and that Criminal Revision Application No. 84 of 2005 before the Sessions Court was also dismissed, with the observation that the complainant may record statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or file a private complaint.
3.4 Accordingly, the complainant filed the private complaint, also making allegations against the police officials. He submitted the list of witnesses, including Jijiben Jaypanbhai, Chandubhai Bhangi, medical officers, a copy of the FIR being C.R. No. I-99 of 2004, complaint- inquest panchnama, and other documents. Upon filing of the complaint, the learned Magistrate ordered an inquiry Page 7 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Court. An inquiry was carried out, witnesses were examined, and thereafter, on 29.03.2007, the learned Magistrate passed an order below Exh. 1 in Criminal Inquiry No. 14 of 2006 holding that the offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, and 120-B IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act were disclosed. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and ordered issuance of non- bailable warrants against the accused persons. 3.5 Further, the learned Magistrate directed that Criminal Case No. 482 of 2005, which was already pending pursuant to FIR C.R. No. I-99 of 2004, be amalgamated with the private complaint so that both matters could be tried together. The said order dated 29.03.2007 passed by the learned Magistrate is under challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.M. Parekh for the petitioner - original Accused No. 2, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is Page 8 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined illegal, perverse, contrary to the provisions of law and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate committed a grave error in directing registration of the private complaint filed by respondent No. 2 - the original complainant on 31.03.2006, and thereafter passing an order in Criminal Case No. 482 of 2005 (arising out of C.R. No. I-99 of 2004, Kadi Police Station) for issuance of non-bailable warrants against the applicant and other accused persons for the offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, and 120-B of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
5. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 had already lodged an FIR before Kadi Police Station on 20.03.2004 in respect of the same incident. The said FIR was duly investigated by the Local Crime Branch, which culminated into filing of a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code. Despite this, after nearly two years of the incident, the same complainant filed a second complaint for the very Page 9 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined same incident by way of a private complaint before the Magistrate, which is not maintainable in law. Under the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, a second complaint on the same facts, by the same complainant, after completion of investigation and filing of a charge- sheet, is impermissible. Therefore, the order passed by the learned JMFC is illegal, perverse, and without jurisdiction.
6. It is further submitted that pursuant to the same incident, the same complainant had lodged the original FIR, the investigation was completed, a charge-sheet was filed, and Criminal Case No. 482 of 2005 is pending, wherein charges have also been framed. The respondent No. 2 has not challenged the framing of charge in Criminal Case No. 482 of 2005. Instead, he has chosen to file a private complaint for the very same incident, which has been erroneously entertained by the learned Magistrate. Hence, taking cognizance of the offences in the private complaint of the same complainant for the same incident, is wholly unsustainable. It is submitted Page 10 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined that the impugned order dated 29.03.2007 passed by the learned Magistrate in Inquiry Case No. 14 of 2006 is required to be quashed and set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.L.R. Pathan for respondent No. 2 - original complainant, has vehemently opposed the present revision application. He submitted that, as per the settled principles of law, even a second complaint is maintainable under certain circumstances. In the present case, although the first FIR was lodged by respondent No. 2, the police did not properly investigate the matter. Since the Revisional Court had granted liberty to the complainant to take appropriate steps, the private complaint filed for the same incident is permissible. It is submitted that, therefore, considering the facts of the case, the second complaint is maintainable, more particularly when the earlier investigation is alleged to be defective.
8. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Pathan has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Page 11 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Surendra Singh Rathore, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 16358 of 2024, decided on 19.02.2025. He submitted that even a second FIR may be maintainable in exceptional circumstances and, therefore, argued that the present revision application is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.
9. Heard the rival submissions of both parties and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistate First Class, Kadi in Inquiry Case No. 14 of 2006 below Exh. 1.
10. The short facts of the case have already been narrated hereinabove. It is not in dispute that, in respect of the very same incident, two complaints have been filed by the original complainant - present respondent No. 2. The first complaint was the FIR, lodged on the date of the incident itself by respondent No. 2 against five accused persons, namely, Munnabhai, Ratilal, Bhemabhai, Mavjibhai, and Babubhai, for the offences under Sections Page 12 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined 302, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. As per the FIR, the incident took place on 20.03.2004 at around 7:00 p.m. when the complainant and the deceased Jenaji were travelling on a scooter. It was alleged that the accused intercepted them, accused Munnabhai gave a spade blow on the head of Jenaji, the remaining accused persons, armed with sticks, also assaulted him, and thereafter they allegedly ran a tractor over Jenaji and the scooter, causing his death on the spot.
11. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the registration of the FIR being C.R. No. I-99 of 2004 at Kadi Police Station, the investigation, on the request of the complainant, was transferred to the Local Crime Branch, Mehsana. Upon completion of the investigation, the Local Crime Branch filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons only for the offences under Sections 279 and 304- A of the IPC and Sections 177, 184 and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Page 13 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined
12. Further, the record shows that the Local Crime Branch submitted a report to the learned Magistrate stating that although the FIR was initially registered under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the case was not one of murder but, a vehicular accident. The report recommended deletion of the Sections relating to murder and unlawful assembly and addition of Sections 279 and 304-A IPC along with the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
13. The investigation by the Local Crime Branch, on the basis of the post-mortem report, the scene of offence panchnama, mechanical inspection, and statements of witnesses, came to be concluded that the death of Jenaji occurred due to an accident involving an Eicher Tractor bearing registration No. GJ-2-U-8462 and the scooter driven by Jenaji. It emerged that because of the impact of the collision, Jenaji sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was filed against Page 14 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined one Bharatbhai Ranchhodbhai Raval, resident of Vadhai, as the driver of the tractor alleged to have caused the accident.
14. It is an admitted position that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has already taken cognizance of the First C.R. No. 99 of 2004. Pursuant to the FIR, the charge-sheet was filed and charges were also framed against the accused persons. It is also undisputed that, for the very same incident, in fact, verbatim the same incident, a private complaint was subsequently filed by the original complainant against the same five persons.
15. It is important to note that, in the police case arising from First C.R. No. 99 of 2004, the Investigating Officer obtained the opinion of the FSL Scientific Officer, secured a report regarding the accident and the Eicher Tractor bearing registration No. GJ-2-U-8462, and also recorded the statements of the passengers in the tractor, including Jijiben Rabari and other conductors and drivers. From the post-mortem report as well, it has been concluded that Page 15 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined the case is one of an accident. This factual position is not in dispute.
16. It is also not in dispute that, after the filing of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate at Kadi took cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as C.R. No. 482 of 2005. In the private complaint inquiry registered as Criminal Inquiry No. 14 of 2006, the allegations are identical and are made against the same accused persons. The contents of the FIR have been reproduced verbatim in the private complaint, and subsequent developments from the police case have also been incorporated, along with allegations against the police. After holding an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned trial Court took cognizance and issued non-bailable warrants against all the accused persons for offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, and 120-B of the IPC, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
Page 16 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined
17. Thus, it is an admitted position that the Magistrate has taken cognizance twice for the same incident, once on the police report and again on the private complaint filed by the same complainant against the same accused persons. There is a settled principle of law that a Magistrate does not take cognizance of an "offence" twice over, and normally, a second complaint for the same incident is not maintainable. Only if the second complaint discloses a distinct offence, or brings on record new material not found in the first complaint, it can be entertained.
18. In this regard, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 -- the original complainant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surendra Singh Rathore (supra). In that decision, while referring to several precedents on the issue of maintainability of a second complaint, the Hon'ble Apex Court ultimately held as under:
"9.1 When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in Page 17 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined reference to which an earlier FIR already stands registered.
9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they may arise from the same set of circumstances.
9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy.
9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances.
9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or different."
19. In the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the facts were that three persons, namely, Vipin Parihar, Devan Shah, and Satya Narayan Saini lodged a complaint before the Anti-Corruption Bureau alleging that the respondent, who was the Chief Executive Officer of the Bio Fuel Authority, had demanded a bribe of Rs.15 lakh per month for the sale of biofuel. Pursuant to this allegation, an FIR came to be registered as C.R. No.123 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 7A of the P.C. Act, the alleged demand having occurred on 04.04.2022. Page 18 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined
20. A second FIR was lodged on 14.04.2022 for incidents alleged to have occurred between 30.09.2021 and 12.04.2022, when one Mr. Shyam Prakash, a constable with the ACB, brought to the notice of the DSP that the respondent, among others, was indulging, in taking bribes for granting licences to run Bio Fuel Pumps. A middleman, namely, Nimba Ram and Ashish, had been put under surveillance, and pursuant to that surveillance, the second FIR came to be filed. The respondent challenged both FIRs by filing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Hon'ble High Court seeking quashing of both FIRs. The matter ultimately reached to the Hon'ble Apex Court.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the facts of the two FIRs, as referred to in paragraph 3 of the judgment, were distinct. The FIR registered earlier in point of time related to a specific incident and specific act of bribe demand, whereas the second FIR pertained to a larger Page 19 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined and wider issue of widespread corruption in the department. Therefore, the Court held that the two FIRs could not be said to relate to the same incident.
22. Turning to the facts of the present case, a comparison of the First FIR lodged before the police and the private complaint, clearly shows that both proceedings were initiated by the same complainant, for the same incident, against the same accused persons. Both complaints relate to the same acts and same allegations. Therefore, unlike the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the two complaints herein are indeed in regard to the same offence. It is well settled that a second complaint is maintainable only when it discloses a distinct offence, or when it brings to light some materially different facts or a separate incident. Only in such circumstances the second complaint can be entertained even if it arises from the same transaction. In the present case, however, the private complaint relates to the same incident and same facts, and therefore, the second Page 20 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined complaint is not maintainable.
23. As discussed above, the learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance twice for the same incident in two different proceedings. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the private complaint is not sustainable in law. It is further a settled principle of law that, in the criminal case registered pursuant to First C.R. No. 99 of 2004 (C.R. No. 482/2006), once witnesses have been examined, the Court has full power under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to add or alter the charge at any stage before pronouncement of judgment. The Court also has power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to arraign any other person as an accused if evidence so warrants. Moreover, the charge- sheet filed by the police already includes the same witnesses, whose names have been shown in the private complaint and their statements have already been recorded.
24. Hence, the findings recorded by the learned Page 21 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/213/2007 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Magistrate are contrary to the settled principles of law, and the order passed is perverse and illegal. Therefore, interference is warranted and the order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
25. In view of the above discussion, the present Criminal Revision Application is hereby allowed qua the present petitioner-accused. The order dated 29.03.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kadi in Criminal Inquiry No. 14 of 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside.
26. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) STANCY GOMES Page 22 of 22 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 04:48:24 IST 2025