Loading...

Mujahidbhai vs State on 5 September, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Mujahidbhai vs State on 5 September, 2011
Author: Rajesh H.Shukla,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/2219/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2219 of 2011
 

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


 

MUJAHIDBHAI
ABDULSAMI SHAIKH & 1 - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=======================================================
Appearance : 
MR
HEMANT B RAVAL for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. 
MR KP RAVAL APP for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
======================================================= 

 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 05/09/2011
 

ORAL
ORDER

The
present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 14,
19, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India as well as under the provisions of the
Criminal
Procedure Code for the prayer that appropriate writ,
order or direction may be issued to the Police Commissioner,
Ahmedabad City and also ordered to Ghatlodia Police not to call the
present petitioners frequently and stop the harassment on the grounds
mentioned in the application.

As
could be seen from the facts stated in the petition referring to a
missing young boy and the statements, which may have been given by
the complainant and others with regard to missing boy, admittedly the
petitioners have been called and their statements have been recorded.
If further investigation requires, they may have to be called for
further investigation and it would not be permissible in law to
prevent the investigation agency from pursuing the investigation.
There is no reason for the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India or even inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code.

There is no lack of jurisdiction but the point is that it has to be
exercised with care and circumspection. Therefore, there has to be
the basis or foundation to show any kind of violation of fundamental
or human rights. Merely because the suspected person, who is alleged
to have been involved, is called for recording statement, it cannot
be said to a harassment. Therefore, such petition cannot be
entertained and deserves to be dismissed in limine.

Accordingly,
the present petition stands dismissed in limine.

(RAJESH
H.SHUKLA, J.)

/patil

   

Top

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information