JASHUBHAI DHANABHAI BARAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the decision taken by the State Government directing reinvestigation of the criminal complaint instituted by the third respondent being CR.I-45/2002 registered before Prabhas Patan police station in Veraval Taluka of Junagadh District in respect of offences said to have been committed at 14.30 hours on 18.3.2002, punishable under sections 307, 326, 34 and 114 of IPC as well as under section 25 of the Arms Act and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The aforesaid FIR was filed on 18.3.2003 by one Jasabhai Lakhabhai Koli of Gorakhmadhi against two unknown persons for the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, names of the accused persons were disclosed and accordingly they were arrested. They were charge-sheeted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Veraval and since the offence in question was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Veraval and it has been registered there as Sessions Case No.85/02. These facts are not very much in dispute.

(2.) Thereafter the State Government felt that further investigation was necessary and therefore, the State Government decided to go for further investigation and instructed CID Crime, Junagadh unit to undertake further investigation. This fact is also not much in dispute. The petitioner herein states that the above decision has been taken by the State Government in colorable exercise of powers with a view to involve the petitioner and other persons in the said offence, though the petitioner had absolutely no connection with the said offence and his name has not been disclosed at any point of time during the stage of investigation. That therefore, with a view to politically victimise and harass the petitioner, further investigation was directed without authority of law. That the State Government has taken the said decision without the permission or order of the Court concerned and, therefore, the said decision is illegal and consequently the investigation pursuant to the said decision undertaken by the CID Crime, Junagadh unit is illegal. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred this petition with a prayer as aforesaid.

(3.) On receiving the petition notice was issued and in response to the service of notice, Mr V M Pancholi, learned APP has appeared on behalf of the State. I have heard Mr N D Nanavati, learned Sr.Advocate appearing with Mr Y S Lakhani, for the petitioner and Mr V M Pancholi, learned APP appearing for the State. Both of them have taken me through the aforesaid FIR at page No.16 and other materials on record.