Gujarat High Court High Court

Bhartiben vs State on 16 March, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Bhartiben vs State on 16 March, 2010
Author: Anant S. Dave,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/2088/2009	 1/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2088 of 2009
 

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

 

BHARTIBEN
ATULKUMAR PATEL - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 6 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
PB KHAMBOLJA for MR NK MAJMUDAR
for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR LR PUJARI, APP for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
7. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 16/03/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

1. The
petitioner who claims to be the owner of the Flat in question, has
filed this petition with a prayer to direct the concerned police
authorities to register her complaint and to take appropriate action
in accordance with law against head-strong and anti-social elements
from interfering from the lawful possession and occupation of the
petitioner and suitable directions be issued.

2. Learned
advocate for the petitioner submits that in spite of repeated
representations and requests made by the petitioner to police
authorities, no action is taken and therefore, when the petitioner is
without any residential accommodation, appropriate protection be
given to the police to register her complaint.

3. It
is not in dispute that Civil Suit No. 1737 of 2007 filed by the
petitioner for declaration and permanent injunction against the
respondent is pending and it appears that no such direction is given
by the competent Civil Court with regard to the possession of the
petitioner when the dispute is with regard to residential Flat
pending before the competent Court, no direction can be given to the
police authority to register the complaint. At the same time, remedy
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is also available to the
petitioner even if the policy authority has refused to register the
complaint.

4. In
view of the above, no case is made out. Hence, I am not inclined to
exercise power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India. The petition stands rejected accordingly.

(Anant
S.Dave, J.)

Sreeram.

   

Top