2017 Supreme(Guj) 613

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sonia Gokani, J.
Pramodbhai Chaturbhai Patel – Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application (Against Order Passed by Subordinate Court) No. 636 of 2013
Decided On : 21-03-2017

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code -Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 395, 427 and 447 -Bombay Police Act. -Section 135 Indian Arms Act -Section 25(1B)(a) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -Section 70 -Applicant herein is the original complainant who has lodged a first information report being I-C.R. No. 322 of 2006 with Satellite Police Station for commission of the offences punishable of the . Prior to lodgment of the said first information report, an application was given by the applicant to the very Police Station apprehending forcible dispossession from the property of his wife by the respondents-accused. It is the case of the applicant that his apprehension appears to be genuine and the respondent-accused made serious attacks with deadly weapons and two persons from the side of the applicant received grave injuries. Subsequently, came to be added in the report, submitted by the Investigating Officer. It is the grievance of the applicant that the investigation was not carried out in right direction and the Police Department was hand-in-glove with the respondents-accused. Several representations made to the higher officers failed to the deaf ears. Various instances have been given to substantiate such allegations. First and the foremost grievance of the applicant is that allegedly forged documents were used as genuine documents by one of the accused- and on the strength of which he filed the Civil Suit. They were not collected during the course of investigation. Likewise, the revolver of the applicant which was allegedly robbed away by the accused and the vehicle used in the commission of the offence were not recovered/discovered. It is after many attempts that the accused were arrested. After a number of representations, the investigation was transferred to the State CID Crime,After such transfer, the warrant was issued against the said and his arrest, against the present applicant and others, the first information report came to be lodged being I-C.R. No. 450 of 2006 with Satellite Police Station, , for the offences punishable Act. It is also averred that the Investigating Officer concluded that the said accused and others were not the owners/purchasers of the land in question being the land bearing Survey Nos. 1252 and 1253 situated at village . To establish their possession over the land, the assault was made for which the first information report being I-C.R. No. 322 of 2006 was lodged. It is also further noticed by the Investigating Officer that the FIR of the accused was a counter-blast to the applicants FIR and, therefore, B summary has been filed. It is the grievance of the applicant that after nearly five years, a supplementary charge-sheet came to be laid before the Court. The same had been committed to the Court of Sessions and the charges were framed against the accused -Held trial Court when called for the report of the Investigating Officer when application was made, the first one as mentioned above received from the Investigating Officer on April 03, 2013 left it to the Court the issue of further investigation. The Courts tone and tenor in the order passed on that day was to direct the Investigating Officer to take a call as provided under the law and hence, in the report, with those very grounds, he denied such a need. These two reports in a short span of 25 days makes the approach of the Investigating Officer questionable. In the first report, he had virtually agreed and had left the issue of further investigation to the Court and later, the very officer strangely changed his stand completely and fully. As such, the trial Court committed no error in not directing further investigation as discussed above, without further delving into the factual aspects. Suffice to direct that since the CDRs of some of the co-accused are not collected as mentioned in the reports of officers also and as discussed above, they should be directed to be collected.For the foregoing reasons, the present Revision Application partly succeeds and the same is, accordingly, allowed. Further investigation is permitted in relation to the CDRs of the concerned co-accused, if not already collected as stated in the reports of the Investigating Agency, which shall be collected within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. order impugned is modified only to the extent aforesaid. Additional report be submitted in that respect to the concerned trial Court. Disposed of accordingly. The interim relief, if any, stands vacated on completion of period of four weeks from today.Appeal is Disposed.