Gujarat High Court High Court

Swapnil vs State on 8 October, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Swapnil vs State on 8 October, 2008
Author: D.H.Waghela,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/1960/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1960 of 2008
 

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

 

SWAPNIL
CHANDERMOHAN VOHRA - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 5 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
VN BHAGODIA for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR.RC KODEKAR APP for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None
for Respondent(s) : 2 -
6. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA
		
	

 

Date
: 08/10/2008 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. The
petitioner has invoked Articles 12,14,16,19,226 and 227 of the
Constitution and Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 with prayers to issue process to respondent No.4 and issue
directions to passport and police officers concerned to put
respondent Nos.2,3 and 4 under Lookout Cell to detain them at the
airport and order to restrain them from going abroad. It was
submitted by learned counsel Mr.V.N.

Bhagodia that the accused persons were likely to escape even as
criminal cases were also pending against them in New York Eastern
District Court in Kings County. Those submissions are made against
the backdrop of facts that the petitioner has lodged a complaint for
the alleged offences punishable under Section 138 read with Section
141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Taking cognizance of the
complaint filed against three respondents, learned J.M.F.C.,
Ahmedabad(Rural) has registered the case and ordered issue of summons
to respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.4 appears to be sister of
respondent Nos.2 and 3 and, in absence of any allegation against her,
the summons appear to have been issued only to respondent Nos.1 and

2. No ground is made out to grant any of the prayers. Therefore, the
petition is summarily dismissed.

2. Office
of the High Court is requested to see that illegible xerox copies of
the documents or annexures are not permitted to be annexed without
properly typed true copies of such documents being filed alongwith
the petition.

(D.H.WAGHELA,
J.)

Hitesh

   

Top