Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.RA/42/2010 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 42 of 2010
=========================================
PURSHOTTAM
NAGJI PARMAR & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
AJ YAGNIK for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR KP RAVAL, APP for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 24/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. The
present Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the
applicants-original accused under Section 397 read with Section 401
of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the impugned
order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar
dated 21/12/2009 below Exh. 16 in Criminal Case No. 6817/1999 arising
out of the Complaint/FIR being CR No. II 43/1997 registered with
Gathda Police Station, Bhavnagar by which the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate has rejected the said application submitted by the
applicants to discharge them for the offences punishable under
Sections 452, 186, 189, 506(2), 120 B and 114 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. The
main contention on behalf of the applicants was that as the offences
punishable under Sections 452, 186, 189, 506(2) against the
applicants are non-cognizable offence the same could not have been
investigated by the concerned Investigating Officer without the order
by the learned Magistrate.
3. However,
so far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, the offences alleged
against the applicants i.e. under Sections 186, 189, 506 (2) etc. are
cognizable offences, and, therefore, the same could have been
investigated by the concerned Investigation Officer without even the
order passed by the learned Magistrate.
4. Under
the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate rejecting the application below Exh. 16 in
Criminal Case No. 6817/1999 cannot be said to be in any way contrary
to the provisions of the statute and the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate has rightly not discharged the applicants as requested.
No other submissions have been made.
5. In
view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present
application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Notice is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier, if any,
stands vacated forthwith.
(M.R.
SHAH, J.)
siji
Top