PRAVINKUMAR MANILAL MEHTA Vs. JYOTINDRA M BHATT
LAWS(GJH)-1988-12-10
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on December 07,1988

PRAVINKUMAR MANILAL MEHTA Appellant
VERSUS
JYOTINDRA M.BHATT Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

YUSUF ISMAIL VOHRA VS. U H PATEL INTELLIGENCE OFFICER [LAWS(GJH)-2002-9-45] [REFERRED TO]
S B KRISHNAVENI VS. E AHOBALA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1993-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
BALWANTBHAI DHARAMSINHBHAI VARIA VS. RAJNIKANT GORDHANBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-1992-4-19] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

G.T.NANAVATI - (1.)The opponent No. 1 has filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad alleging that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec. 206 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court issued process and pursuant thereto the accused appeared before the Court on 10-9-1987 Neither on that day nor on any day subsequent thereto the learned Magistrate took any evidence and straightway framed a charge on 6 The petitioner challenged in the Sessions Court that action of the learned Magistrate by filing a revision application. The Sessions Court rejected the same on the ground that it vas against an interlocutory order and therefore it was not maintainable. The Petitioner has therefore filed this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal ProcEdure fur quashing the charge and for directing the learned Magistrate to follow the procedure as laid down in Secs. 244 245 and 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.)It is true that the petitioner has approached this Court under Sec. 487 of the Code after his revision application to the Sessions Court has been rejected. Ordinarily this Court would not entertain such an application but looking to the facts of this case and in order to avoid wastage of public time and money I have thought it just and proper to entertain this application
(3.)It is not in dispute that this is a warrant case instituted otherwise-than upon a police report. It is also not in dispute that on the day on which the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate the prosecution had not kept any witness present nor any evidence was led on that day. It is also not in dispute that the learned Magistrate framed the charge without any thing more than the complaint and the substance of examination of the complainant under Sec. 200 of the Code.
;


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