Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Mark vs Harijan on 5 December, 2011

Author: M.R. Shah

Bench: M.R. Shah

  
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	

 
 


	 

SCR.A/2246/2007	 3/ 3	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2246 of 2007
 

 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH-Sd/-
 
 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	 
	 
		 
			 
				 

1.
			
			 
				 

Whether
				Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
			
			 
				 

NO
			
		
	
	 
		 
			 
				 

2.
			
			 
				 

To
				be referred to the Reporter or not ?
			
			 
				 

NO
			
		
		 
			 
				 

3.
			
			 
				 

Whether
				their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
			
			 
				 

NO
			
		
		 
			 
				 

4.
			
			 
				 

Whether
				this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
				interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
				made thereunder ?
			
			 
				 

NO
			
		
		 
			 
				 

5.
			
			 
				 

Whether
				it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
			
			 
				 

NO
			
		
	

 

=========================================


 

MARK
PETTIGREW & 2 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

HARIJAN
MAYABHAI VALABHAI & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
NANAVATI
ASSOCIATES for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 3. 
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, 
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR VIRAT G POPAT for Respondent(s) :
1, 
MR. DABHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 07/02/2012 

 

 
ORAL
JUDGMENT 

1.0. Present Special Criminal Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners herein-original accused to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being CR-II-No.47 of 2007 registered with Marine Police Station, Pipavav Port lodged by respondent no.1 herein-original complainant for the offences under Section 3(1)(vi)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2.0. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while admitting the present Special Criminal Application learned Single Judge granted ad-interim relief / interim relief granting stay of further investigation of the impugned FIR. However, same came to be modified by this Court dated 5.12.2011 permitting Investigating Officer to investigate the FIR.

3.0. Today, when the present Special Criminal Application is taken up for final hearing today, Shri Dabhi, learned APP under the instructions from the concerned Investigating Officer District Superintendent of Police (SCST), Amreli and more particularly considering the report dated 16.1.2012 addressed to him has stated at the bar that after investigation is concluded, the investigating officer has found that no case is made out against the applicants as alleged and an appropriate report shall be submitted before the concerned Magistrate. Shri Popat, learned advocate for the respondent no.1

-original complainant has submitted that as such at this stage the statement of the complainant would be sufficient. It is submitted that in case the Investigating Officer submits any report before the concerned Magistrate in that case, liberty be reserved in favour of the complainant to oppose the same by submitting protest application and learned Magistrate may be directed to consider same in accordance with law and on merits.

4.0. In view of the above, Shri K.S. Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw the present Special Criminal Application. Concerned Investigating Officer is directed to act as stated above and submit an appropriate report before the concerned Magistrate, which shall be considered by the concerned Magistrate. It goes without saying that if the learned learned Magistrate is of the opinion that the said report is to be accepted, in that case, as per the settled proposition of law and procedure, he is required to issue notice upon the complainant to submit an appropriate application/ objection by way of protest application and same is required to be considered by the concerned Magistrate in accordance with law and on merits. Therefore, it is observed that as and when any such notice is issued by the concerned Magistrate, it will be open for the complainant to submit the objection/ protest application against the same, which be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law and on merits. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.

(M.R.SHAH, J.) kaushik >kaushik