Gujarat High Court High Court

Rajesh vs State on 22 June, 2009

Gujarat High Court
Rajesh vs State on 22 June, 2009
Author: H.N.Devani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/1099/2009	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1099 of 2009
 

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


 

RAJESH
VISHNUKUMAR RATHI - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
Appearance : 
MR
PC KAVINA with MR CHETAN K PANDYA for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR KL PANDYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 22/06/2009 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Heard
Mr. P.C. Kavina, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Chetan K. Pandya,
learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1 State of
Gujarat.

By
this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to restore the
original Investigation Officer of First Information Report being
I-C.R. No.152/2009 registered with Sector 7 Police Station,
Gandhinagar and to further direct him to complete the investigation
at the earliest in accordance with law.

Mr.

K.L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed on
record a copy of the final report under Section 173 of the Criminal
Procedure Code which has been submitted before the concerned Court
on June 15, 2009 whereby the Investigation Officer has recommended
that the matter deserved to be treated as C Summary.

Having
regard to the aforesaid, the relief prayed for in the petition no
longer survives as the investigation has already been completed.
The petition is accordingly disposed of as having become
infructuous.

(Harsha
Devani, J.)

Caroline

   

Top