Gujarat High Court
Jigarbhai Rameshbhai Panchal vs State Of Gujarat on 16 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 03/07/2025
Pronounced On : 16/10/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 984 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
JIGARBHAI RAMESHBHAI PANCHAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SUMIT B SIKARWAR(5991) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. JAINISH P SHAH(7033) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED TO CONCERNED POLICE STATION HOWEVER,
SERVICE REPORT NOT FILED BY POLICE STATION for the Respondent(s)
No. 3
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service for Rule on behalf of the respondent - State.
2. The present revision application has been preferred by the present applicant under Section 397 read with Page 1 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short "Cr.PC") directing against the order passed by the learned 5th Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar in Criminal Inquiry No.174 of 2022 passing an order below Exh.1 dismissing the complaint of the original complainant under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C on 28.05.2024.
3. By consent of the learned advocate for respective parties, the present revision application has been taken for final hearing and disposal of the revision application.
4. The short facts to the present revision application is that one private complaint came to be filed by the present petitioner - original complainant - accused nos.1, 2 and 3, the present respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 114 and 120(B) of the IPC and it was prayed before the learned Magistrate Court to send the complaint to the concerned police station for the investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The said complaint came to be filed before the learned Trial Court on 15.07.2022. The allegation made in the private complaint is that the complainant, at the relevant point of time, was not in India and the accused persons have forged partnership deed and reduced the percentage of the partnership and based on the same, an account was opened in collusion with the officer of the ICICI bank and the account which is opened with the ICICI Bank and the amount of sale Page 2 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined proceeded was received in the said Bank account, was opened by forging signature and other relevant material including account opening form, etc and the present applicant was not in India when such account was opened and signature has been forged and after he arrived and from the passport, it was established at the relevant time that he was not in India when the account with the ICICI Bank was opened and by making such type of allegation, private complaint came to be filed. The accused persons have committed the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 114 and 120-B of the IPC as prayed to send the complainant for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
5. After filing of the complaint, the learned Magistrate Court has passed an order and perused the complaint, it was in the inquiry register that the complaint was posted for 26.07.2022 for the verification of the complainant and subsequently, the learned Magistrate has invoked the power under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C as from the complaint, it was disclosed that the present complainant has also given a complaint before Adalaj Police Station on 30.06.2022, hence, with the learned Magistrate has stayed with this private complaint under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C and directed the concerned police to submit the report of the investigation within 30 days and after the report has been submitted by the concerned police, no offence has been made out. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has issued the notice Page 3 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined to the complainant and the original complainant has objected to the report submitted by the Investigating Officer and subsequently, after considering the report submitted by the investigation agency and considering the submission of the original complainant, the learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C and being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the present revision application has been preferred.
6. Heard Learned advocate Mr. Virat G. Popat for the applicant - original complainant and he submitted that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is bad in law and required to be quashed and set aside. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in dismissing the complaint of the present applicant under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C without following procedure laid down under Chapter-XV of the Cr.P.C which requires examination of the complainant on oath and also witnesses, if any, thereafter, learned Judge has power to decide with regard to the dismissal of the complainant or otherwise, in other words, without examining the complainant on oath, learned Judge is denude from the power to dismiss the complainant under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C and the aforesaid proposition of law is well-settled and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohindersingh Vs. Gunwant singh & Ors. reported in 1992 (2) SCC page 213 and also by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court Page 4 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined in the case of Dilipkumar Vs. Brajraj Srivastav reported in 2023 Livelaw (SC) page 597.
7. Further, it was submitted that at the stage of issuance of the process, or at the stage of the issuance of the order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C only glance at the complaint is required and if the complaint discloses cognizable offence, then, it is imperative that order under Section 56(3) of the Cr.P.C is to be recorded and also an option before the Magistrate to proceed under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C, a prima facie offence is disclosed and the inquiry as envisaged under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C is limited to find out prima facie case is disclosed or not and at that time, it would not be the concern of the Court that in the present case, the learned Trial Court has expanded the scope of inquiry only with a view to reject the complaint filed by the present applicant. Further, it was submitted that as per the settled principle of law, expression "Sufficient ground" used for Sections 203, 204 and 209 of the Cr.P.C and whole satisfaction is of prima facie nature with regards to the commission of an offence and not sufficient ground for purpose of conviction, however, he would submit that the order of the learned Magistrate is erroneous and suffers from non-application of mind as the provisions of Section 203 of the Cr.P.C does not come into play unless there is a statement of complainant recorded on oath and the witnesses if any, are examined, no such procedure has been followed and Page 5 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined straightway order under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C has been passed and therefore also, the impugned order is bad in law and is required to be set aside.
8. Further, in support of his argument, learned advocate for the applicant has relied upon the following authorities:
a) Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Anr. Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 517
b) L. Narayana Swamy Vs. State of Karnataka & Others, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 598;
c) Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose alias Chani Bose and another, reported in (1963) SCC OnLine SC 4;
d) Minu Kumari and another Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 359;
e) Dilip Kumar Vs. Brajraj Shrivastava and another, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 916;
f) Mohinder Singh Vs. Gulwant Singh and others, reported in (1992) 2 SCC 213;
g) Shivjee Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwary and others, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 578;
9. Relying upon the above authorities, submitted that if the statement on oath of the complainant and the witnesses has been recorded in the circumstances, only, the complaint can be dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C and in the present case, order passed under Page 6 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Section 203 of the Cr.P.C which is at post cognizance stage without examining complainant and without affording any opportunity to the complainant to examine the witnesses, the impugned order is passed, hence, the present revision application is required to be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court is required to be quashed and set aside.
10. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal Unawala assisted by learned advocate Mr. Sumit B. Sikarwar has submitted that the present revision application is devoid of any merits. The learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. Further, it was submitted that a complaint came to file under Section 200 before the learned Magistrate. It is not incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to hold the inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C and if the Court found that there is no substance in the complaint or no cognizable offence has been disclosed then, the Court has power to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C, hence, submitted that there is no illegality has been committed by the learned Trial Court. Further, in support of his argument relying upon the decision of this Court, in the case of Nishant Varma Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2015 (0) AIJEL - HC 233356.
11. Heard the learned advocates for respective parties and perused the impugned judgment and R&P. Page 7 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
12. The short facts of this has already been narrated above.
13. Learned advocate Mr.Virat G. Popat mainly assailed the judgment on the ground that as per Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C, the Trial Court has not recorded the statement of the complainant on oath or neither recorded any statement of the witnesses and merely on that ground only, simplicitor will dismiss the complaint and follow the procedure as provided under Sections 200 to 204 of the Cr.P.C and only on this ground, has assailed the judgment of the trial Court.
14. Learned advocate for the applicant has mainly relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Anr. Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 517 which is as under:
"36. We shall immediately advert to the aspect whether or not CJM had taken cognizance of the offence and whether the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 in the matter was post-taking cognizance.
37. The word, ""cognizance"" occurring in various Sections in the Code is a word of wide import. It embraces within itself all powers and authority in exercise of jurisdiction and taking of authoritative Page 8 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined notice of the allegations made in the complaint or a police report or any information received that offence has been committed. In the context of Sections 200, 202 and 203, the expression `taking cognizance'' has been used in the sense of taking notice of the complaint or the first information report or the information that offence has been committed on application of judicial mind. It does not necessarily mean issuance of process.
39. From the above order passed by the CJM, there remains no doubt that on 18.06.2004, he had taken cognizance although he postponed issue of process by directing an investigation to be made by Police Officer. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 that the CJM had not taken cognizance in the matter and the complaint was dismissed u/s 203 at the pre-cognizance stage has no substance and is rejected."
15. Further, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Dilip Kumar Vs. Brajraj Shrivastava and another, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 916 which is as under:
"4. We have carefully perused the order dated 18th September, 2008 passed by the learned Magistrate and earlier order of 22nd August, 2008. Under sub-Section (1) of Section 202 of Page 9 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has a discretion either to inquire into the case himself, or to direct a Police Officer to investigate and submit a report. In this case, he took recourse to the first option. A perusal of the complaint shows that eight witnesses were specifically named in the complaint. The learned Magistrate did not examine any of them. In the order dated 18th September, 2008, the learned Magistrate has not recorded reasons for not recording the statements of other witnesses specifically cited in the complaint. The law is well settled, which is found to have been reiterated in the decision in the case of Mohinder Singh (supra). After taking recourse to sub-Section (1) of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., before dismissing a complaint by taking recourse to Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has to consider the statements of the complainant and his witnesses. In this case, the learned Magistrate has not examined the other witnesses. The view taken by this Court in the case of Nagawwa (supra) is no different."
16. Further, he has also relied upon the judgment in the case of L. Narayana Swamy Vs. State of Karnataka & Others, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 598 and further he has submitted that before dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C, the statement of the Page 10 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined complainant on oath and the statement of the witness on oath are required to be considered. So far as the facts of the present case is concerned, from the R&P, it transpires that a private complaint came to be filed before the learned Trial Court by the complainant on 15.07.2022 and on 15.07.2022, as per the R&P, the complaint was read by the Court and it was registered in Inquiry register and matter was proceeded for the verification on 26.07.2022. Further, from the Rojkam, it transpires that on 26.07.2022, complainant was not present but the advocate of the complainant was present. Hence, the matter was posted for the verification of the complainant and the next date was given on 06.08.2022. Further, on 06.08.2022, complainant was not present but the list was produced on behalf of the complainant and subsequently, Court found that from the written complaint given by the complainant that for the similar allegation, application or the complaint has been given to the Adalaj Police Station, so, Court has passed the order under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C and the private complaint came to be stayed and called for the Report from the concerned Police Inspector, Adalaj Police Station and the matter was fixed on 30.06.2022 and directed the concerned police to produce the report that what happened on the complaint given by the complainant before the police station and subsequently, a report has been received by the Court and as per the report, it was disclosed that no offence has been made out against the accused person, Page 11 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined hence, learned Trial Court has issued the notice to the complainant and the complainant has been called for. He has objected this report and after hearing the learned advocate for the complainant, the learned Trial Court has exercised the power under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C and dismissed the complaint. So far as discussed above, on which learned advocate for the applicant is relying upon, more particularly, Sections 200 to 203 of the Cr.P.C is concerned, it is the argument of the learned advocate for the applicant that before dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C, a statement on oath of the complainant and the witness is required to be recorded. It is an admitted position that the present case in hand is concerned, even the verification of the complainant has not been recorded but no statement of the witness has been taken on oath. The authorities on which the learned advocate for the applicant is relying upon and on that cases, after the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C has been filed by the complainant. The Court found that this is the case where the process is not required to be issued against the person and there was a dynamic mind of the Court, hence, the matter has been invoked a power under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C and then, inquiry is to be conducted by the Court. So, from now, in this regard, perused the chapter 15 of the Code deals with the complaints of the Magistrate, which is as under:
"18. Chapter XV of the Code deals with the complaints to Magistrates. It has four Sections, Page 12 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined 200 to 203, which read as under:
Section - 200. Examination of Complainant.-- A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate:
Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses-
(a) If a public servant acting or purp Mohander orting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a court has made the complaint; or
(b) If the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry, or trial to another Magistrate u/s 192:
Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate u/s 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re- examine them.
Section 201. Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case.- If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, he shall, -Page 13 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
(a) If the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper court with an endorsement to that effect;
(b) If the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper court.
Section 202. Postponement of issue of process.-- (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:
Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made-
(a) Where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions; or
(b) Where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under Section 200.
Page 14 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined (2) In an inquiry under Sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witness on oath:
Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under Sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.
Section 203. Dismissal of complaint.-If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) u/s 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing."
17. So, from the plain reading of the Section, when the inquiry is to be held either by the Court, in that circumstances, he has to take evidence of witnesses on oath from the statement and oath of the complainant is required to be recorded. Further, the present case in Page 15 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined hand is concerned, as per the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilipbhai (Supra), if the law is well settled that considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh (Supra) after taking records to sub-section 1 of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C before dismissing the complaint, Magistrate has to consider the statement of the complainant and his witnesses and if any list of witness has been given then, those witnesses are to be examined. But in the present case in hand is concerned, the Magistrate has not recourse to Section 202 of the Cr.P.C and after the complaint has been filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C, the matter was posted for the verification of the complainant but the complainant was not present and subsequently, the said complaint came to be stayed by exercising power under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C and called for the report from the Adalaj Police Station and after the report received by the Court, notices were issued to the complainant and his objection was considered and then, complaint came to be dismissed by exercising the power under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manharibhai (Supra) in Paragraph No.26, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Adalat Prasad has held as under:
"26. In Adalat Prasad (2004) 7 SCC 338, a three-Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider Sections 200, 202 and 204 Page 16 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined of the Code. The scheme of the above provisions was explained in the following manner:
12. Section 200 contemplates a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint to examine the complaint and examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any. If on such examination of the complaint and the witnesses, if any, the Magistrate if he does not want to postpone the issuance of process has to dismiss the complaint u/s
203 if he comes to the conclusion that the complaint, the statement of the complainant and the witnesses have not made out sufficient ground for proceeding.
Per contra, if he is satisfied that there is no need for further inquiry and the complaint, the evidence adduced at that stage have materials to proceed, he can proceed to issue process u/s 204 of the Code."
18. So, considering this, from the complaint itself and the report submitted by the police, learned Trial Court come Page 17 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined to the conclusion that there is nothing has been disclosed that the accused has committed offence as alleged prima facie, then learned Trial Court has dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. Further, even from the record, it transpires that when the private complaint came to be filed before the learned Trial Court, even no list of witness has bee produced along with the complaint before the Magistrate and after the Court has exercised power under Section 210 of the Cr.P.C and called for the report. Considering the merits of the complaint, complaint came to be dismissed. Further, I have also perused the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court has recorded the findings that as per the documentary evidence produced along with the complaint, nothing has been disclosed and no averment has been made that the accused has forged the signature of the complainant and mother of the complainant. Further, dispute pertains to the accounts of the partnership firm initially, the partnership deed was executed. Subsequently, there was some dispute has been arisen and subsequently also, the complainant and his mother has given the power to the accused person to proceed further and the learned Trial Court has also rightly come to the conclusion that there is civil dispute between the parties. Considering this, findings recorded by the learned Trial Court is just and proper and does not require any interference. Further, learned Trial Court has not committed any error of law by Page 18 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/984/2024 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined directly dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C, hence, considering this, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. The present Criminal Revision Application No.984 of 2024 is hereby rejected.
19. The order passed by the learned 5 th Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar in Criminal Inquiry No.174 of 2022 passing an order below Exh.1 dismissing the complaint of the original complainant under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C on 28.05.2024 is hereby confirmed. Rule is discharged. R&P be sent back.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) JCP Page 19 of 19 Uploaded by MR.JAIMIN CHANDRAKANTBHAI PRAJAPATI(HCD0066) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 04:26:20 IST 2025