Gujarat High Court
Patel Ratilal Ambalal vs State Of Gujarat & on 9 May, 2007
CR.RA/213/2007 1/3 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 213 of 2007
=========================================================
PATEL RATILAL AMBALAL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR AM PAREKH for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KC SHAH, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2,
=========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA
Date : 09/05/2007
ORAL ORDER
1. I have heard Mr.A.M.Parekh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. He has made the following submissions:
2. The respondent No.2 has filed a complaint being First Crime Register No.CR-1 99 of 2004 on 20.3.2004 for the offences under Secs.302, 147, 148, 149, and 120-B of IPC alleging that the petitioner and other accused have committed murder of Nenaji Pruthviraj.
2.1 In view of the allegations made against the local police by the complainant, the investigation of the said crime as per the request of the respondent No.2 was entrusted to the local Crime Branch at Mehsana and even after thorough investigation by the local Crime Branch, the police had not arrested the petitioner and other accused. After completion of the investigation, HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Fri Dec 18 00:04:50 IST 2015 CR.RA/213/2007 2/3 ORDER they have submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offences under Secs.177, 184, 134, 279 and 30 Part-I of the M.V.Act against one Bharatbhai Ranchhodbhai Raval.
2.2 The respondent No.2 submitted an application before the learned JMFC, Kadi for the further investigation under Sec.173-8 of the Cr.PC and after considering all the aspects and the police papers, the learned JMFC rejected the application for further investigation alleging that the police has not properly investigated the matter and other grounds but the learned Magistrate by order dated 13.9.2005 rejected the application of the complainant for further investigation. The petitioner also came to know that against the said order, the respondent No.2 has also preferred Criminal Revision Application No.84 of 2005 and against the order passed by the learned JMFC, Kadi dated 13.9.2005 for rejecting the respondent No.2's application for further investigation. The learned Judge after considering all the records came to the conclusion that in view of the allegations made against the local police and filed Special Criminal Application No.296 of 2004 and considering this aspect the State has transferred the investigation to the local crime branch and submitted the charge sheet under Sec.304-A and Sec.209 before the learned Judge against the said Bharatkumar Shankarlal Raval. The said revision application has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge by reasoned order on 29.9.2005.
HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Fri Dec 18 00:04:50 IST 2015
CR.RA/213/2007 3/3 ORDER
2.3 It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of the aforesaid facts, though he is not succeeded and on earlier ground of litigation for the transfer of investigation and also seeking further investigation under Sec.173-8 of Cr.PC without any change of circumstances and without any new material, he filed a private complaint on 31.3.2006 being Inquiry Case No.14 of 2006 before the learned JMFC, Kadi for the offences punishable under Secs.147, 148, 149, 302, and 120-B of IPC and under Sec.135 of the Bombay Police Act. The learned JMFC, Kadi after examining the respondent No.2 before the Court passed an order for inquiry under Sec.202 and thereafter, after concluding the inquiry passed an order on 29.3.2007 for issuance of the process "non-bailable warrant" and passed an order for registration of the new criminal case and also passed an order to try this criminal case together.
3. Mr.Parekh, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala and ors., reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, and submitted that the second complaint is not maintainable at law. In this behalf, this Court has already passed an order on 1.5.2007.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, interim relief in terms of para 13(C)is granted. Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.Mehta, J.) Sreeram.
HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Fri Dec 18 00:04:50 IST 2015