Gujarat High Court High Court

Kalpesh vs State on 21 April, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Kalpesh vs State on 21 April, 2011
Author: Md Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/3812/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 3812 of 2011
 

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

KALPESH
GAGJIBHAI RANPARIA & 2 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
YOGESH LAKHANI, SR.ADVOCATE WITH MR.D K.PUJ
for Applicant(s) : 1 -
3. 
MS CM SHAH, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR
HARDIK A DAVE for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 21/04/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. Heard
Mr.Yogesh Lakhani, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.D.K.Puj, learned
Advocate for the applicant. It is submitted by Mr.Lakhani, Sr.
Advocate and Mr.Dave, learned Advocate for respondent no.2 that
matter is settled between the parties. This Court (Coram : Ravi R.
Tripathi,J.) passed following order on 16.01.2011 in Criminal Misc.
Application No.35 of 2011 : –

“Heard
learned advocate Mr.Amit Panchal with Mr.D.K.Puj for the petitioners.

Notice
returnable on 11.1.2011. Learned APP Mr.Desai waives service of
notice on behalf of respondent No.1 – State and Mr.Dave waives
service of notice on behalf of respondent No.2.

The
prosecution may verify the handwriting of the ‘notes’ with the
admitted handwriting of the deceased.”

2. As
per order dated 16.01.2011, Investigating Officer has received report
of handwriting expert and investigation is at preliminary stage.

3. In
view of above, Notice returnable on 12.05.2011.
Ms.C.M.Shah, learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of
respondent no.1 – State. Mr.Hardik Dave, learned Advocate
waives service of notice on behalf of respondent no.2. There is no
stay over the investigation. Investigating Officer will not arrest
applicant no.1 without permission of the Court. Direct service is
permitted.

[M.D.Shah,
J.]

satish

   

Top