The High Court clarified an order of the Revisional Court, explaining that the remand meant for 'further inquiry' and not a 'fresh inquiry', satisfying the aggrieved applicants.
Impugned order explained/modified to read as further inquiry rather than fresh inquiry.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
R/SCR.A/752/2009 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 752 of 2009
For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Sd/
=============================================
| 1. | Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? |
No |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | To be referred to the Reporter or not ? | No |
| 3. | Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? |
No |
| 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 ? |
No |
| 5. | Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? | No |
=============================================
AJMALSINGH VIRAMSINH PARMAR & 1....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR UMANG H OZA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 2
MR IQBAL M MALIK, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JAGDISH M SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS NISHA THAKORE, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 12/02/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1.0] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 27.02.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Nadiad in Criminal Revision Application No.46/2006, by which in exercise of powers under Section 397/398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
Page 1 of 3
R/SCR.A/752/2009 JUDGMENT
1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) the learned Revisional Court has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and has discharged the accused at the stage of inquiry under Section 203 of the CrPC and without trial and has remanded the matter to the learned Magistrate for inquiry afresh, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.
[2.0] The only grievance which is voiced by Shri Oza, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners – original accused is that even in exercise of powers under Section 397 read with Section 398 of the CrPC, the learned Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to pass the order for fresh inquiry, while remanding the matter to the learned Magistrate and while quashing and setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate discharging the accused at the stage of inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC.
Shri Oza, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has stated at the Bar that if it is clarified that the impugned order be read as further inquiry by the learned Magistrate, the petitioners would be satisfied.
[3.0] Shri Iqbal Malik, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 has stated at the Bar that he has no objection if the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court is clarified to the aforesaid extent.
[4.0] In view of the above broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court is hereby explained and/or modified to the extent and it is observed that on remand the learned Magistrate to hold further inquiry
Page 2 of 3
R/SCR.A/752/2009 JUDGMENT
including further evidence and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law and on merits and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Revisional Court may not be treated as a fresh inquiry on remand.
Sd/ (M.R. SHAH, J.)
Ajay
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional court had jurisdiction to order a fresh inquiry instead of remanding for further inquiry.
How to interpret the impugned order that discharged the accused and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
AJMALSINGH VIRAMSINH PARMAR & 1....
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....
M.R. SHAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
