Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1556 (GUJ)

Jayeshbhai Dhirajlal Mistry v. State of Gujarat

2017-09-04

A.Y.KOGJE

body2017
ORDER : A.Y KOGJE, J. 1. This application is filed for impleadment of party respondent in Special Criminal Application No. 4779 of 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “main petition”) and for vacating the interim order dated 07.07.2016 passed in the main petition. The application is filed on the ground that the applicant is a necessary party to the main matter, as he is the original complainant of the FIR being I-C.R No. 57 of 2016 registered with Katargam Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered against the respondent No. 3 (original petitioner/original accused). 2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. N.D Nanavati for learned advocate, Mr. Virat G. Popat with learned advocate, Mr. Masoom K. Shah appearing for the applicant, who contends that the presence of the applicant in the proceedings is very much necessary, as the applicant is affected by the offence committed by the accused and his presence would be necessary to bring to the notice of this Court, the true and correct facts, more particularly, when the first petition for quashing of the FIR was rejected by way of a detailed order passed by this Court. In order to circumvent the order of this Court as well as to escape the criminal prosecution, the accused has been filing one application after other and hereby causing hindrance to the on-going investigation. 3. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the vacating of order dated 07.07.2016 directing not to take any coercive action requires to be vacated considering the special facts of the case, including the fact that the offence involves more than 117.64 crores of rupees. It is submitted that the provisions of Cr.P.C are sufficient to offer remedy to the accused person rather than granting him protection under the interim order not to take any coercive steps against the accused. 4. As against this, learned senior counsel, Mr. R.R Marshall for learned advocate, Mr. Manan A. Shah appearing for the respondent No. 3 (original petition/accused person) submits that the main petition is filed only with a view to bring to the notice of this Court that the directions issued by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 13631 of 2016, more particularly, in pars 17, 18 and 19 are not followed in letter and spirit. Application No. 13631 of 2016, more particularly, in pars 17, 18 and 19 are not followed in letter and spirit. On the contrary, the directions have been flagrantly flouted and therefore, the petition is filed for taking action against the erring police officers, who are working hand in glove with the applicant complainant. He submits that when the main petition is not alleging anything against the applicant and it is only for the limited purpose of the act on the part of the investigating officer, the hearing of the applicant is not essential. In fact, the approach of the applicant to file the present application for joining in the petition of this nature speaks volumes about the conduct of the applicant and is indicative of the fact that the applicant and the investigating officer are working in tandem. Thus, this application is filed for joining to save the skin of the police officer, who has tken his side in stead of making a fair investigation. 5. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that the pleadings of the main petition do not reflect any allegations against the applicant herein. The purpose and purport of the petition appears to be only to bring on record the flouting of the directions contained in the order of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 13631 of 2016 by the investigating officer, to which the reply and explanation could be accepted only at the end of the investigating officer or the agency. In so far as the argument that the applicant is the original complainant of the offence which is under investigation is concerned, this Court is aware of the fact that a separate petition has been filed for quashing of the complaint where the applicant has been made a party respondent and there the applicant can have his say being the complainant. However, the applicant would not be competent to answer the conduct of the investigating officer while complying with the directions of this Court and hence, this Court is of the view that hearing of the applicant, by joining him as party respondent in the main petition, will not further the ends of justice nor he is a necessary party to be heard and is also not essential for the decision in the main matter. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.