RADHELAL HIRALAL NIMAVAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Y.H. Motiramani, learned counsel for Mr. Divyesh Nimavat, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Neeraj Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Bhavesh Trivedi, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 original complainant.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that Respondent No.2 filed criminal complaint being Criminal Enquiry Case No.17 of 2003 in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gondal on 25th October 2005 against the present applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code ('the I.P.C.', for short) for getting revenue entries mutated in the revenue records as the legal heirs and representative of deceased Hiradas Govindram along with legal heirs and representatives of other deceased owners. The learned Magistrate kept the complaint for enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short) and after recording the statement of Respondent No.2 and other witnesses was pleased to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code by his order dated 10th May 2003. Respondent No.2, feeling aggrieved by the order dismissing his complaint, preferred revision application being Criminal Revision Application No.21 of 2004 in the court of the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Gondal. The Revision Application was allowed vide order dated 30th September 2005 whereby order dated 20th February 2004, passed in Criminal Enquiry Case No.17 of 2003 came to be quashed and the learned Magistrate was directed to take cognizance of the complaint. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and ordered to issue process against the present petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the complaint being Criminal Case No.1741 of 2005.

(3.) Mr. Bhavesh Trivedi, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 original complainant and Mr. Neeraj Soni, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the one hand and Mr. Y.H. Motiramani, learned counsel for Mr. Divyesh Nimavat, learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand are not in conflict so far as the fact that the petitioners were not arrayed as opponents in Revision Application No.21 of 2004 and thereby they were denied the opportunity of hearing.