CHANDRAKANT KESHAVLAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 2-3-2001 of Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara passed in Criminal Revision Application No.19/2001 is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) The instant revision has been filed under the following circumstances : A complaint was filed against 18 persons named as accused. Surajben was the complainant. On this complaint, an order was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara on 14-11-2000 under sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing investigation to be made on the complaint by Gorva Police Station. On plain reading of the complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate found that, it appeared that mischief has been played with the documentary evidence, and if, police investigation is carried out for the same, necessary documents are required to be seized and thorough investigation is necessary. The complaint was under sections-420, 465, 466, 446, 468, 471, 506(2), 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears from the record that one of the accused Chandrakant Keshavlal Shah, on receipt of information from the police station, moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate annexing necessary documents and intimating that there has been no forgery in the Will and that Probate of the Will was obtained on 7-8-1992 and the matter was confirmed up to the Apex Court. It was also intimated that Regular Civil Suit No.48/99 was also filed in respect of the Will, which fact was also suppressed by the complainant, so also the judgment of the Apex Court. The same Will was under consideration in S.C.A. No.7224/96 filed against the State of Gujarat in this Court and the judgment of this Court was confirmed by the Apex Court. This fact was also suppressed by the complainant and all these suppression of facts were made intentionally. It was, therefore, requested that the order to make police investigation under sec.156(3) of the Code be recalled. On 15-2-2001, the Chief Judicial Magistrate considered all the documents alongwith the list submitted by the applicant, accused and observed that the complainant had suppressed the facts that the competent civil Court had granted the Probate Application on merits by deciding the rights of the parties. He, therefore, recalled the order for police investigation on the ground that the Court was kept in dark by the complainant. Criminal Revision Application No.19/2001 was filed against the order dated 15-2-2001 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, whose order is under challenge in this revision.

(3.) Shri BS Patel, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Satish Patel, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Shri HH Patel, learned APP for the respondent nos.1 and 2 were heard.