HIMMATLAL MOHANLAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case appears to be that respondent No. 2 file complaint under Sees. 193, 196, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120B and 114 of I.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate being Complaint No. 21 of 2002 against the petitioners herein. The learned Magistrate at the initial stage, vide order dated 17-6-2002, directed for investigation under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The matter was sent to the concerned Police Station. The Police Officer investigated into the matter and 'B' Summary Report was submitted on 6-11-2002 by the concerned Police Sub-Inspector, Palitana Town Police Station, stating that it is a civil dispute, the matters are pending before the Civil Court and the offence is not committed and the complaint appears to be false. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, issued notice to the complainant, and subsequently, heard the complainant and passed the order on 19-8-2002, whereby he observed that the revenue record, on the basis of which the 'B' Summary Report has been filed, is having presumptive value and he found that on the basis of the material produced with the investigation report, cognizance deserves to be taken for the offence under Sees. 463, 465 and 471 read with Sec. 114 of I.P.C, therefore, the process was issued vide order dated 19-2-2003 upon the accused-petitioners herein. It is under these circumstances the present revision before this Court.

(2.) Heard Mr. A. D. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. K. P. Raval, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Mangukiya, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.

(3.) It appears that the matter is at the stage of issuance of process by the learned Magistrate upon the report submitted before him under Sec. 156(3) by the police. Therefore, the aspects to be considered would be whether the learned Magistrate has committed error of exercise of the jurisdiction in issuance of the process on the basis of the material before him or not.