CR.MA/537319/1997 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION No. 5373 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA ========================================================= KESHAVLAL M PATEL - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PJ KANABAR for Applicant(s) : 1, MS MS PANCHAL, APP for Respondent(s) : 1, MR MUKESH PRAJAPATI for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLAKIA Date : 17/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.P.J.Kanabar and learned APP, Ms.Panchal, for the respondent No.1. 2.Against the present applicant and other accused, complaint has been filed by the complainant before the Patan Taluka Police Station for the offence punishable under Secs.352, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and Sec.3(1)(10) of the Prevention of Atrocities on Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1985 which has been registered as Patan Taluka Police Station II.C.R.No.149 of 1997 CR.MA/537319/1997 2/3 JUDGMENT on 18-9-1997. Before the Investigating Officer proceeds further with the investigation, the applicant has knocked the door of the High Court in the year 1997 and obtained interim order in his favour. In pursuance of that, Investigating Officer could not investigate the matter further till date. 3.Record shows that once this matter has been dismissed for default and same has been restored later on. I am not entering into the aspect whether restoration can be done or not in criminal matter. 4.It has been mainly argued by Mr.Kanabar that the complaint does not disclose any ingredients of the offence more particularly offence under the Atrocities Act and, therefore, the Court should interfere with the same. 5.I have gone through the complaint along with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. According to me, complaint discloses prima facie ingredients of the offence and hence, it requires investigation. If at all any ingredient of the offence is disclosed, the applicant can raise the same at the time of framing the charge, if any charge sheet has been filed at the end of investigation. CR.MA/537319/1997 3/3 JUDGMENT 6.In view of the above, this application stands rejected. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. Investigating Officer is directed to investigate in the matter forthwith and complete the same within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (R.P.DHOLAKIA,J) radhan/