Gujarat High Court High Court

Rajendra vs State on 21 January, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Rajendra vs State on 21 January, 2010
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

CR.MA/5625/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 5625 of 2009
 

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

 

RAJENDRA
B JOSHI PARTNER - ASHAPURI ENTERPRISE - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
ARPIT A KAPADIA for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR KP RAWAL, APP for Respondent(s) : 1, 
MR SP
SINGH for Respondent(s) :
2, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 21/01/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

The
petitioner is praying for quashing of a criminal complaint
Annexure-A. Complaint has been filed by the then Managing Director of
Gujarat State Forest Development Corporation. The petitioner was a
contractor who had undertaken some work to the Corporation. He filed
written complaint against the complainant to his higher authority
alleging inter-alia that the complainant has indulged into gross and
serious irregularities. It is this communication of the petitioner
which prompted the complainant to lodge a formal complaint of
defamation before the Court of Magistrate. The Magistrate has issued
process and same has been served to the petitioner recently. He has
therefore, filed this quashing petition.

Having
heard learned advocates appearing for the petitioner, I do not find
it possible to exercise quashing powers. The petitioner has made
certain allegations against the complainant. The allegations do
amount to making derogatory remarks against the complainant. It is
not in dispute that said allegations have been communicated in the
form of writing by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it
cannot be stated that contents of the complaint even if taken on face
value discloses no offence. Whether the act of the petitioner can be
covered under any of the exception to Section 499 of IPC is too
premature to judge. This can be decided on the basis of evidence
that may be brought on record.

The
petition is therefore, dismissed.

(Akil
Kureshi,J.)

(raghu)

   

Top