A revision application challenging the dismissal of a private criminal complaint alleging forgery of a will was dismissed because the complaint contained only bald allegations without any supporting prima facie material for prosecution.
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/CR.RA/1234/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1234 of 2017
==========================================================
RAVAL MITESH NATHULAL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 P N BRAHMBHATT(7384) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR TEJAS M BAROT(2964) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2 MR K L PANDYA APP(2) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 RULE NOT RECD BACK(63) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 4 RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3 RULE UNSERVED(68) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 5,6
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 24/12/2018
ORAL ORDER
This revision application is made for
challenging the order dated 20/07/2017 rendered by
the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.2422 of
2017 whereby the complaint of the petitioner was
dismissed.
2.Following prayers have been made in this
revision application:
“15A. Admit and allow this petition.
B. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate Writ or Order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.07.2017 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Misc. Application No.2422 of 2017.
Page 1 of 4
R/CR.RA/1234/2017 ORDER
the representation, dated 20/09/2016 made by him and further direct to proceed with the same in accordance with law and take action against the respondent persons, within stipulated time, the Hon’ble Court may deems fit.
D. Pass such other orders that may be just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”
3.The applicant had also made an application being
CR.MA No.1 of 2018 in CR.RA No.1234 of 2017 which
came to be disposed of by this Court by an order
dated 23/11/2018. The facts in both the applications
are same and therefore the facts and reasonings
indicated in the order dated 23/11/2018 in CR.MA
No.1 of 2018 in CR.RA No.1234 of 2017 shall also be
the facts and reasonings for disposal of this
application.
4.This Court had passed the order in the following
terms in CR.MA No.1 of 2018 in CR.RA No.1234 of 2017
on 23/11/2018.
“ 1. None is present for the petitioner.Page 2 of 4
R/CR.RA/1234/2017 ORDER
Before that, he had approached this Court with a grievance of his complaint not being registered by the police which grievance was redressed by directing the police authority to find out whether the cognizable offense against the said opponent exists. It appears that the police did not find the cognizable offense against the said accused and appropriate report was filed.
3. One more effort was made by the applicant making a grievance against such police report before this High Court, which was eventually not pressed with a statement that the applicant was advised to resort to section 200 of CRPC. The Court without expressing any opinion as to whether the petitioner can have such resort, disposed of that petition as not pressed. Eventually, in a private criminal complaint also the complainant was unsuccessful.
“9(B) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate order/direction for examination and verification for authenticity of will of applicant’s father by forensic department and hand writing experts.
9(C) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant such further and other relief, as may be deemed to be just and proper.”
”5. The only difference between the two applications is the prayer. As can be noticed, on the earlier
Page 3 of 4
R/CR.RA/1234/2017 ORDER
occasion, learned Counsel for the petitioner was
absent. Today, also he has filed sick-note. However,
in view of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 132 of the Gujarat
High Court Rules, 1993, sick-note will not apply to
the criminal cases. It, however, appears that a last
chance was given to the Counsel for the petitioner,
Mr.Tejas Satta for production of documents on
12/06/2018. No such documents are produced on
record.
6.Under the above circumstances, the allegations
in the complaint under Section 200 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, remain only bald allegations.
In absence of the supporting material, it was not
possible for the trial Court to proceed ahead with
the matter as expected by the petitioner. For the
reasons already recorded herein above, no substance
is found in the revision application. Revision
application fails and is dismissed.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J)
SOMPURA
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused were liable on the complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging forgery of a will.
Whether directing a forensic examination of a will by the court amounts to a proper exercise of judicial power in a criminal complaint.
Whether a private criminal complaint can be sustained without prima facie incriminating material.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RAVAL MITESH NATHULAL
STATE OF GUJARAT
G.R. UDHWANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court