Gujarat High Court High Court

Manharbhai vs State on 7 September, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Manharbhai vs State on 7 September, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/10405/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 10405 of 2010
 

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

 

MANHARBHAI
BALUBHAI ALIAS BABUBHAI MAYAVANSHI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
JB PARDIWALA for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MS CHETNA SHAH Ld. APP for Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 07/09/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. Heard
the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State
for final disposal of this petition.

2. The
petitioner is the original complainant. He has filed Criminal Case
No. 12/2009 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Pardi, alleging various offence punishable under sec. 465, 467, 468
etc. read with section 114 of IPC as also for the offence punishable
under the provisions of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On the said complaint, learned
Magistrate has passed the order on 16.10.2009, which reads as
follows:

Read
the complaint and perused the documents. The complaint is sent for
police investigation under sec. 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure to
the Pardi Police Station. Report to be submitted within one months.

3. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted to my mind rightly that such
order of the learned Magistrate suffers from defects inasmuch as the
complainant has not been examined on oath before passing the order.
He, therefore, submitted that the order be set aside and the learned
Magistrate be requested to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

4. While
agreeing with the said suggestion, the order dated 16.10.2009 is,
therefore, quashed. The proceedings are to be of pre-cognizance
before the learned Magistrate, who shall pass a fresh order in
accordance with law. The request of the petitioner that this is a fit
case, where appropriate investigation under sec. 156(3) of Code of
Criminal Procedure is called for, shall also be considered, with
respect to which, I have expressed no opinion.

5. With
the above observation and direction, this petition stands disposed
of.

(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)

mandora/

   

Top