Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/562/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 562 of 2009
=========================================================
MAHMOOD
AKBARMIYA MALEK - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NIRAV C THAKKAR for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR KP RAVAL, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 5.
MR SK PATEL for Respondent(s) :
2 - 5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 03/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. Petitioner
is original complainant. He had filed a complaint of a document
having been created by his false signature. Document pertains to
agreement to sale a scooter by the accused to the petitioner.
2. It
appears that scooter was involved in a hit and run accident. Police
authorities upon preliminary investigations suspect the petitioner to
be the driver involved in the accident. This was on the basis of the
registered owner of the vehicle disclosing to the police that scooter
was already under agreement to sale entered into in the year 2002 and
possession thereof was with the petitioner since then.
3. Petitioner
thereupon filed a complaint before the police alleging forgery and
contending that the signature on the document was not his.
4. Police,
however, upon completion of investigation submitted ‘C’ summary
report, which was accepted by the Magistrate despite objections from
the petitioner. Revision application was filed by the petitioner
which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad
hence, the petition.
5. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police did not carry
out proper investigation and ought to have sent the disputed document
i.e. agreement to sale for handwriting expert’s opinion. Petitioner
is being falsely involved in an accident case. He submitted that in
any case, ‘C’ summary ought not to have been accepted by the
Magistrate.
6. On
the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the respondents
opposed the petition. I have also heard learned APP for the State.
7. From
the materials on record I find that upon police investigation, it was
concluded that the complaint was not genuine and that the same was
filed only to avoid liability arising out of fatal accident. Learned
Magistrate has while examining the report of the police observed that
the investigating officer has recorded statement of several witnesses
and on the basis of such evidence collected, it was found that the
scooter in question was sold to the petitioner on 09.01.2002 for an
amount of Rs.14,001/- and towards sale price he has also paid
Rs.10,001/- and all liabilities to pay tax etc. were on the
purchaser. The vehicle thereafter was involved in a fatal accident
on 10.04.2005 in the outskirts of village Vaso. Such a statement was
given by the petitioner himself on 06.03.2006. Thereafter he has
filed present complaint on 02.05.2006. Not only that, other
witnesses have also supported the version that the scooter was sold
to the petitioner by Pravinbhai Gopalbhai. Thereafter when the heirs
of the deceased filed filed the claim petition, to avoid such
liability present complaint has been filed. From the panchnama of
seizure of the scooter drawn in the accident case, it appears that
the same was produced by the petitioner himself before the police.
The learned Magistrate in short was of the opinion that the police
report of ‘C’ summary should be accepted.
Revision
application of the petitioner before the Sessions Court also failed
for similar reasons.
8. When
two Courts below by giving concurrent findings on scrutiny of
evidence collected and facts on record, have decided the ‘C’ summary,
I see no reason to interfere. When no perversity is pointed out in
such factual conclusions, I am broadly in agreement with view of the
Courts below. Learned petitioner’s counsel’s insistence of sending
the document in dispute for handwriting expert’s opinion cannot be
countenanced since there is sufficient other material on record to
establish that the allegations in the complaint were not correct.
9. In
the result petition fails, dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
menon
Top