PATEL LILABHAI AMBALAL Vs. PATEL KANUBHAI MAFATLAL
LAWS(GJH)-1988-2-4
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on February 22,1988

PATEL LILABHAI AMBALAL Appellant
VERSUS
PATEL KANUBHAI MAFATLAL Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

ASHOK KUMAR TODI VS. KISHWAR JAHAN [LAWS(CAL)-2010-5-29] [REFERRED TO]
MITESH @ DILIP BABUBHAI PATANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2008-6-145] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R.A.MEHTA - (1.)Both these applications are by the same petitioner for substantially same relief. The petitioner is the original complainant and brother of deceased Babiben wife of one Kanubhai Mafatlal Patel respondent No. 1 in Misc. Cri. Application No. 2095 of 1987. The other respondents are the family members of the husband arid in-laws of the deceased. It is riot in dispute that this is a case of unnatural death of Babiben. The complainant petitioner suspects that his sister has been murdered by the respondents accused. He gave written complaint to Chanasma Police Station which is Annexure A to the Special Criminal Application. The incident had taken place at about 9 p.m. on 8-8-1987. The written complaint was given on 10-8-1987. However that was not recorded as FIR. Therein it was stated that the in-laws had done his sister to death.
However on the next day i.e. on 11-8-1987 a statement of the complainant was recorded which has been registered as FIR at CR No. 97 of 1987 and it is treated as offences punishable under Secs. 498A 304 and 201 of IPC. In this statement a clarification is taken from the complainant that even though it is stated in the application that these persons have intentionally murdered his sister it was not the purpose or intention of his say but his intention was to state that his sister had committed a suicide or had died a suspicious death and therefore he had made that application because the in-laws have not informed the police had not taken the deceased to Government Hospital and had also not got the post-mortem done and that he was given false intimation that his sister was suffering from cholera. However when he went to see his sister she was already dead and he was not allowed to see her dead body. Thereafter on 26/08/1987 the complainant has addressed a letter to Special Inspector General of Police CID (Crimes) as he felt that the police was not properly making investigation and some influential persons were bringing pressure in the case. In respect of this FIR of 11-8-1987 a chargesheet is filed on 24-9-1987 for offences punishable under Secs. 498A and 201 read with Sec. 114 of IPC.

(2.)The grievance of the complainant is that he has given written information of an offence under Sec. 302 of IPC and the police has not recorded the complaint for offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC and the police has right from the beginning started with a case of suicide and made investigation to that end only and this investigation is highly improper casual and deliberately towards the desired one and therefore the prayer is that the investigation be directed to be made by other independent agency like CID (Crimes) and to register the FIR for offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC. There is also a prayer for cancellation of bail which has been granted to the respondent by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class.
(3.)On behalf of the respondents accused it has been submitted that this is an unfortunate case of suicide and all the accused are absolutely innocent. It is submitted that after due investigation the police have filed a chargesheet for offences punishable under Secs. 498A 201 read with Sec. 114 of IPC and that the trial will take place in accordance with law and there is no case for interference with the executive function of police of investigation and statutory duty and right of the police to investigate into cognizance offence and the trial of such offence by the competent Court.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.