Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/2675/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 2675 of 2011
=========================================
TEJAS
MADHUSUDAN KOTHARI
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 6
=========================================
Appearance
:
PARTY-IN-PERSON for
Petitioner
MR KP RAVAL APP for Respondent No.1
None for
Respondent Nos.2-7
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 11/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
[1] The
present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who appears as
party-in-person, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India as well as under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code
for the prayer that inquiry under Section 156(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code may be issued and the impugned order passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara in Inquiry Case No.64 of
2009 at Annexure “A” may be quashed and set aside and
also for the prayer for CBI inquiry on the grounds stated in the
petition.
[2] Heard
the petitioner – original complainant, who appears as
party-in-person.
[3] The
petitioner has tried to submit that the order passed by the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara is erroneous and has made
favourable attempts to convince this Court without any valid reason.
There is no explanation for the delay in challenging the order dated
26.11.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class in
Inquiry Case No.64 of 2009, in the year 2011. Further though he has
requested that the inquiry under Section 156(3) of the Criminal
Procedure Code could have been ordered, as can be seen from the order
the learned Judicial Magistrate has considered the details that after
giving the complaint, the petitioner has failed to produce any
supporting material or evidence and therefore when no further
material has been placed on record as provided under the Criminal
Procedure Code, the order under Section 203 has been passed which
cannot be said to be erroneous. The impugned order itself refers to
the facts in detail and it is also stated in paragraph No.6 as to the
complaint made by the petitioner was kept for verification and though
there was sufficient opportunity, the petitioner has failed to
produce the documents and other material and, therefore, the order
came to be passed.
[4] It
is in these circumstances, there is no reason to interfere under
Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code or Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India. It is required to be mentioned that the
petitioner has filed writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
It appears from the letter of the Apex Court, that the petition was
defective. It is in this circumstances, the present petition cannot
be entertained and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly,
the present petition stands dismissed.
[
RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. ]
vijay
Top