Gujarat High Court
Ravinbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 7 March, 2018
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
R/SCR.A/3055/2011 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3055 of 2011
==========================================================
RAVINBHAI RANCHHODBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SAHIL M SHAH for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
DELETED for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 12,2,3,4
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 11,5
MR BHARAT JANI for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 10,3,6,7
MR FEROZ H PATHAN for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 8,9
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 11,12,2,4,5
MS. MOXA THAKKAR, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 07/03/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant - original first informant calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 17.09.2010 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in the Criminal Revision Application No. 129 of 2003, by which the Revisional Court rejected the revision application filed by the applicant herein, thereby affirming the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 3, Page 1 of 7 R/SCR.A/3055/2011 ORDER Ahmedabad, dated 28.04.2003, in the Inquiry Case No. 53 of 2001 (M. Case No. 13 of 2001).
2. It appears from the materials on record that the applicant herein lodged a private complaint in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate against the private respondents herein, for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 384, 418, 463, 464, 465, 468, 471, 477(A) read with Sections 34 and 114 of the IPC.
3. The Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order of Police Investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The proceedings in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate came to be registered as the Inquiry Case No. 53 of 2001. The Investigating Officer, on conclusion of the investigation, submitted a B-Summary report before the trial Court.
The trial Court considered the B-Summary report filed by the police as well as the objections filed by the applicant herein as regards the B-Summary report. The B-Summary report, ultimately, came to be accepted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
Page 2 of 7R/SCR.A/3055/2011 ORDER
4. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the applicant preferred a Revision Application referred to above in the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court, by order dated 17.09.2010, rejected the Revision Application.
The order passed by the Revisional Court is extracted hereunder:-
"1. The applicant - original complainant has preferred the present Revision Application challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 28-04-2003 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 3, Ahmedabad ("lower Court"
for short), in Inquiry Case No. 52/2001 (M. Case No. 13/2001). I have heard learned advocate Shri P.R.Abhichandani for the applicant, and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Shri B.S. Patel for the respondent State, and also perused the Records & Proceedings called for from the lower Court.
2. In the instant case, it appears that the present applicant was one of the shareholders of the Saraspur Nagrik Cooperative Bank Limited, of which, the accused were either the Chairman, Managing Director, Manager, Director or other office bearers. The applicant - original complainant filed a complaint before the lower Court against the present respondent nos. 2 to 12 - original accused, for the offences under Sections 34, 120B, 384, 418, 463, 464, 465, 468, 471, 477A, & 114 of the Indian Penal Code, on 30-07-2001. The said case was Page 3 of 7 R/SCR.A/3055/2011 ORDER registered as the Inquiry Case No. 53/2001 before the lower Court. The lower Court having regard to the said complaint, directed investigation to the Police Inspector, Shaherkotada Police Station, Ahmedabad, under Section 156(3)of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 ("Code" for short). The Investigating Officer after carrying out the investigation, submitted the "B" Summary Report before the lower Court, contending inter alia that a false complaint was filed and that there was no substance in the allegations made in the said complaint. It further appears that the lower Court after considering the written submissions made on behalf of the complainant as well as the accused, accepted the "B" Summary Report (without prosecution) submitted by the Investigating Officer, vide the order dated 28-04- 2003. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant - original complainant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 of the Code.
3. It has been submitted by the learned advocate Shri P.R. Abhichandani for the applicant that the applicant has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order firstly on the ground that the lower Court had committed an error of law in hearing the accused at the stage of dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Code, which was not permissible. It has also been contended that the impugned order passed by the lower Court suffers from non-application of mind and misinterpretation of facts and law. However, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Shri B.S. Patel for the respondent no. 1 - State supporting Page 4 of 7 R/SCR.A/3055/2011 ORDER the impugned order passed by the lower Court, submitted that the complaint having been filed by the complainant with mala fide intention, and there being no substance found in the complaint by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, the lower Court had rightly accepted the "B" Summary Report of the Investigating Officer.
4. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and the records of the case, it appears that the lower Court had directed the investigation to be made by the Police Inspector, Shaherkotada Police Station, Ahmedabad, under Section 156(3) of the Code. The said order having not been challenged by the complainant at the relevant time, the investigation was carried out by the Police Inspector, Shaherkotada Police Station, who ultimately submitted the "B" Summary Report before the lower Court. There does appear some substance in the submission of learned advocate Shri Abhichandani that the lower Court should not have heard the accused at the stage of accepting the 'B' Summary report, and that the accused had no locus standi. However, no such contention appears to have been taken before the lower Court, nor the order of lower Court issuing notices to the accused appears to have been challenged by the applicant at the relevant time.
5. From the report of 'B' summary as well as from the record of the case, it transpires that the father of the complainant Shri Ranchhodbhai Virchand Patel was the Joint Managing Director of the Shahpur Nagrik Cooperative Bank Limited, and had Page 5 of 7 R/SCR.A/3055/2011 ORDER resigned as such in 1999. It further appears that thereafter, the disputed had arisen between the father of the complainant and the present respondent nos. 2 to 12, and that the bank had also filed the Summary Lavad Suits before the Board of Nominees against him i.e. the brother of the complainant and other family members in connection with the recovery of lacs of rupees. The father of the complainant also appears to have filed other complaints against some of the present respondents. Thus, considering the said facts, the Investigating Officer as well as the lower Court had found that the present complaint was filed by the complainant at the instance of his father as a counter-blast to the said litigations and that there was no substance in the allegations made in the complaint of the complainant, and does not find any illegality or infirmicy in the order passed by the lower Court, accepting the "B" Summary Report of the Investigating Officer. Even otherwise, the complaint having been filed in the year 2001, and dismissed in the year 2003, no further order is required to be passed in the present Revision Application in the year 2010, except to confirm the impugned order passed by the lower Court. In that view of the matter, the Revision Application deserves to be dismissed, and following order is passed:
ORDER The Revision Application is dismissed.
The Records & Proceedings of Inquiry Case No. 53/2001 be sent back to the Court No. 3, Metropolitan Magistrate, Page 6 of 7 R/SCR.A/3055/2011 ORDER Ahmedabad.
Pronounced in the open Court on this 17th day of September 2010."
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, I am of the view that no interference is warranted in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No error, not to speak, of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the Court below in passing the impugned orders.
6. In such circumstances, this application fails and is hereby rejected. Rule discharged.
(JBP,J) Bhoomi Page 7 of 7