Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/1425/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 1425 of 2011
=============================================
RASIKBHAI
SHANKARLAL PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance
:
MR TEJAS M BAROT for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KARTIK PANDYA ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
M/S S G ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) :
2,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 11/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Heard
learned advocates appearing for the parties.
2. Mr.
Tejas Barot, learned advocate for the applicant submits that name of
the applicant is reflected during course of the investigation, since
name of the applicant was not mentioned in the FIR and no role was
attributed. It is further submitted that what is alleged against the
applicant is that he had accompanied accused named in the FIR at
various places and introduced the persons to enter into the
transaction. The applicant herein is serving in the ONGC and at the
most the next allegation is to the extent that while investigation
was on, the applicant had arranged the meeting to resolve the dispute
between the parties and it is considered as involvement of the
applicant in commission of the crime. The above approach of the
investigating authority in a case of sale deed registered on
different dates which were not signed or in any manner executed by
the applicant, for which, he is not to face any harassment and,
therefore, the impugned complaint to be stayed.
3. Learned
advocate for the complainant and learned APP for the State has
opposed grant of any relief to the applicant on the ground that the
applicant is the person who has arranged all transactions and played
important role and his involvement vis-a-vis the offences is under
investigation. Besides, statements recorded by a clerk of the notary
would reveal that the applicant herein had accompanied other accused
at the time of notarization of the documents.
4. Having
heard learned counsels for the parties, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and recital of the sale deed, it reveals
that amount in question with regard to consideration was paid by
cheques and dates on which the amount was paid is also mentioned.
All three documents namely sale deeds do not reflect name of the
applicant as a signatory in any capacity. Besides, till today no
action of civil nature is taken over to cancel the power of attorney,
sale deed etc. even with regard to the accused named in the FIR.
Prima facie, statements have been recorded about presence of the
applicant at various places including the office of Talati or before
the Notary by itself cannot be said to be involvement in any of the
crime. Besides, the transaction appears to be of a civil nature, I
deem it just and proper to stay further investigation qua the
applicant herein only and is stayed accordingly.
5. In
view the above, matter deserves consideration. Hence, Rule
returnable on 6th April, 2011. Mr. P.
S. Gondaliya, learned advocate, waives service of rule on behalf of
complainant and Mr. Kartik Pandya, learned APP, for the respondent –
State.
Direct
service is permitted through the concerned police station.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
//smita//
Top