RASHIKLAL BABULL VANAND Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside order of learned J.M.F.C., Balasinor dated 6.7.2002 with respect to the C.R. No. I-83 of 1999 and to confirm the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anand in Criminal Revision Application No.8 of 2003.

(2.) The petitioner - original complainant filed complaint against the respondents No.2 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 323, 452, 397, 378 and 506 of Indian Penal Code being C.R. No. I-83 of 1999 and after investigation, as per NC report of the concerned Investigating Officer, it appears that though opportunity was given to the petitioner, original complainant to submit his objection, the petitioner did not submit his objection and therefore, by an order dated 29.7.2002, the right of the petitioner to submit his objection came to be closed and thereafter, considering the police report, the learned J.M.F.C., Balasinor by his judgment and order dated 6.7.2002, dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Balasinor dated 6.7.2002, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application NO.8 of 2003, which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Camp at Anand by his judgment and order dated 7.5.2004. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order, the petitioner is constrained to prefer this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. K.T. Dave, learned A.P.P. while opposing the present application, has submitted that as observed by both the Courts below, reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his objections to the report submitted by the Investigating Officer, still, the petitioner did not submit any objections. Under the circumstances, the learned J.M.F.C., Balasinor was justified in closing the right of the petitioner to submit objections and rightly dismissed the complaint by both the Courts below. It is submitted that there is no jurisdictional error much less an error of law committed by any of the Courts below, which requires to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.