IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No 319 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO ------------------------------------------------------------- NARSINHBHAI JETHABHAI RATHOD NAVICHALI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR DJ BHATT for Petitioner No. 1 MR VM PANCHOLI, APP for Respondent No. 1 .......... for Respondent No. 2-3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH Date of decision: 10/05/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. Rule. Mr.V.M.Pancholi, learned APP waives service of notice of rule. 2. The Investigating Officer of Sabarmati Police Station is present before the Court. On his instruction, learned APP states that the application posted was received from the applicant and it was required to be verified and hence efforts made by the Investigating Officer, but the applicant could not be tressed out and, therefore, further proceedings could not be undertaken. Learned advocate for the petitioner states that the petitioner will present before the concerned Police Station on 11/05/2002. The learned APP has no objection in recording FIR. It is directed that the the petitioner shall remain present before the concerned Police Station on 11/5/2002 and thereafter, his FIR shall be recorded and naturally on the strength of the registration of the offence, investigation will be carried out in accordance with law. In view of the above position, no further direction is required to be given and, therefore, this application is ordered to be disposed of. Rule is discharged. In case of difficulty, the petitioner will be at liberty to apply afresh. [D. P. BUCH, J.] vijay