CHINTAN RAJNIKANT PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ld. Advocate Mr. Dholakia for the petitioner and Ld. APP Mr. Raval for the respondent State.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged order dated 22/4/2016 passed by the 6th Addl. District Judge, Ahmedabad [Rural] [hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'] below application at exh. 11 preferred by the petitioner in Sessions Case No. 208/2014. In such Sessions Case, present petitioner is accused and he is facing charges under sections 376, 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]. At the outset, let it be recorded and clarified that though Sessions Case is of the year 2014 and though the application at exh. 11 is submitted to the Court on 27/10/2015, the handwritten order shows the date of order as 22/4/2011. Therefore, it is to be considered as a typographical error only by treating the date of the order as 22/4/2016 as disclosed in para 11 [b] of the revision application.

(3.) By such impugned order, the trial Court has though allowed the application partly and thereby though directed the investigating agency to provide copies of certain documents which are produced with list exh. 5, request of the petitioner to provide statement of witnesses recorded pursuant to complaint dated 7/4/2010 of the complainant of present case before different police stations and final report of all such cases, is rejected. Such prayer is made considering the fact that from the complaint dated 4/7/2010, it is revealed that the complainant has given one another complaint before present complaint to Aslali Police Station and thereafter one another complaint before Karanj Police Station and at both the police stations, her statement was recorded. The certified copy, so also typed copy of such complaint, which is registered at C.R. No. I- 62/2010 with Aslali Police Station on 7/4/2010 is annexed with the petition and on perusal of such complaint, it becomes clear that the complainant has categorically disclosed in her complaint that her father-in-law has come to Ghodasar at Harikrupa Flats, near Punit Crossing with officer of Karanj Police Station and she was taken to Karanj police Station, where her statement was recorded, so also statement of petitioner - Chintan. Therefore, there is reason for the accused to ask for copy of such information and her statement. Thereafter, it is further stated in the same complaint that when Chintan has not approached her for three days as promised, she had been to Aslali Police Station for filing complaint. The statement in complaint between these two factual details is somewhat insufficient or unclear when it is recorded that after recording statement of the complainant and Chintan, present petitioner accused, by Karanj Police, the custody of the complainant has been given to one Bharatbhai Maganbhai Patel though the complainant is aged 22 years and she had been to Naranpura with said Bharatbhai. But when Chintan had gone somewhere saying that he will return within three days to marry the complainant and thereafter, when Chintan did not turn up, the complainant has then approached Aslali Police Station for lodging the present complaint.