Gujarat High Court High Court

Shri vs State on 18 January, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Shri vs State on 18 January, 2010
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/1651/2005	 2/ 2	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1651 of 2005
 

 
 
For
Approval and Signature:  
 
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
 
 
=========================================================

 
	  
		 
			 

1
		
		 
			 

Whether
			Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
		 
			 

2
		
		 
			 

To be
			referred to the Reporter or not ?
		
	

 
	  
		 
			 

3
		
		 
			 

Whether
			their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
		
	

 
	  
		 
			 

4
		
		 
			 

Whether
			this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
			interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
			made thereunder ?
		
	

 
	  
		 
			 

5
		
		 
			 

Whether
			it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
		
	

 

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

 

SHRI
R.V.BHATT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
ARPIT A KAPADIA for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR DC SEJPAL, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1, 
=========================================================


 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

Date
: 18/01/2010 

 

ORAL
JUDGMENT

Heard
learned advocate, Mr.Arpit Kapadia, for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P., Mr.Sejpal, for respondent No.1.

Having
perused the FIR being C.R.No.99 of 2002 dated 5.9.2002 and the
contents thereof and the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., and
page Nos.359 and 360 i.e. report filed by Dy.D.D.O., Bharuch before
the Court, no case is made out for quashing of the complaint, hence,
petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to cost.

(RAVI
R.TRIPATHI, J.)

(binoy)

   

Top