NAZIRMOHAMMED ALIMOHAMMED VORA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Hardik A.Dave for the applicant and Mr.A.D.Shah, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 5 and Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for respondent No.1

(2.) The petitioner is the complainant. He has filed one complaint on 5.3.2012 before the Vejalpur police station, which is registered as I FIR No.55 of 2012 against the present respondents No.2 to 5 u/ss.307 and 114 of the IPC as well as u/s.27 of the Arms Act. In such FIR, though the name of four persons are categorically disclosed as accused, it is the say of the petitioner that in fact he has stated in the complaint itself that, in all, there were five persons and fifth person who was driving the car was not known to him and, therefore, his name was not disclosed. At present, the petitioner s grievance is to the effect that though he has disclosed the name of five persons in his FIR while filing the chargesheet being No.125 of 2012 on 28.6.2012, the investigating officer has instead of investigating the details of the fifth person being driver of the vehicle in question, filed chargesheet only against four persons who were already named as accused by the complainant in the FIR itself. It is alleged by the petitioner that investigating agency has done the investigation half-heartedly and without taking due care of the allegations and evidence during the investigation and filed improper chargesheet inasmuch as atleast one person has been allowed to let-go and that though weapon was used at the time of incident, since there was fire against him and though presence of bullet was confirmed during the investigation, police has failed to ask for the remand of the concerned accused so as to recover the weapon being material evidence for commission of offence by the respondents accused.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Dave has, to prove his submission, read-over the FIR wherein it is categorically stated that there were five persons and fire from revolver had taken place against the complainant. Relying upon such categorical disclosure, the petitioner has prayed before the trial Court, by filing an application u/s.173(8) of the Cr.P.C. on 8.11.2012, to pass appropriate orders for further investigation. By impugned order dated 8.3.2013, 5th Addl.Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad has dismissed such application being Exh.2 in Sessions Case No.92 of 2012. Such decision was taken by the trial Court after giving an opportunity to both the sides to submit their case and after relying upon the relevant provisions of law and citations that may be referred by the parties.