TARLOCHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 4, Vadodara, in Criminal Revision Application No.311 of 2007 and seeks a direction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara to issue process under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code ) against the accused person in connection with the offences registered vide J. P. Road Police Station, Vadodara I-C.R. No. 145 of 2006.

(2.) The petitioner herein lodged a first information report being J. P. Road Police Station, Vadodara I-C.R. No.145 of 2006 against one Urmilbhai Hasmukhbhai Shah, alleging commission of the offences punishable under sections 354, 323 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to the lodging of the aforesaid first information report, the police carried out investigation and the investigating officer filed a report under section 173 of the Code requesting the court to grant B summary (which means that the complaint was found false). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 8.2.2007 granted B summary as sought for by the investigating officer. Being aggrieved, the petitioner went in revision before the Sessions Court at Vadodara, in Criminal Revision Application No.133 of 2007. The learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, FTC-4, Vadodara by his order dated 27.7.2007 allowed the revision application and set aside the order dated 8.2.2007 passed by the learned Magistrate in connection with the above referred first information report and directed the learned Magistrate to issue a notice to the petitioner complainant and give sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any order on the B summary report.

(3.) The petitioner, thereafter, filed detailed objections before the learned Magistrate, Vadodara against the B summary sought for by the Investigating Officer. By an order dated 26.11.2007 passed below Exhibit-3, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara directed further inquiry under section 202 of the Code by the Police Inspector, J. P. Road Police Station, Vadodara with a further direction to submit the report within 30 days. The petitioner, once again, went in revision before the District and Sessions Court, Vadodara in Criminal Revision Application No.311 of 2007. The learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, FTC-4, Vadodara by the impugned order dated 22.2.2008 rejected the revision application on the ground that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had passed an order of further inquiry. The inquiry has been going on and the report is yet to be collected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The question of granting or refusing B summary would be decided only when the report is finally received and order is passed. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the order impugned before him was an interlocutory order and as such the revision was not maintainable. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the relief noted hereinabove.