Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/548/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
THE
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 548 of 2010
=========================================================
MAFATLAL
GORDHANDAS NAYAK - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MAHENDRA K PATEL for
Applicant(s) : 1,
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 17/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioner – original complainant has challenged the order
dated 20th July 2010 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Patan, dismissing his case being Police
Inquiry Case No.31/2008.
The
petitioner had filed a complaint in writing before the concerned
Magistrate alleging against the respondent no.2, the then Collector
of Patan that he had used abusive language and insulted him in a
meeting with other bank officers. He, therefore, alleged that the
respondent no.2 had committed offence punishable under Sections 504,
506(2) IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
In
the said complaint, upon being called, the police carried an inquiry
and submitted a report suggesting that no offence is made out. The
petitioner questioned the finding thereof. However, during the
pendency of the proceedings his case came to be dismissed due to his
absence.
In
the order itself, it is also recorded that previously he was absent
on several occasions. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted
that the petitioner was present on previous occasions and the learned
Judge erred that he was remaining continuously absent.
Having
perused the documents on record and having heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State, I find that
even if the observations of the learned Magistrate in the impugned
order is considered that the petitioner was absent on three different
occasions in the past, he is not accurate.
In
fact, no interference is called for. Admittedly, on the date when the
case was fixed for further hearing, the petitioner had not remained
present. I have perused the police report as well as the complaint
filed by the petitioner. No case for interfering with the finding in
the police inquiry is made out. On that ground also, I do not find
it necessary that the issue be reopened.
Considering
the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this
petition is dismissed.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
/moin
Top