High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 06 GUJ CK 0013

Tukaram Amruta Kardile vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 2 June 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.N. Karia, J
CASE NUMBER
R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 8644 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 340 words

B.N. Karia, J

Mr. Kunal Shah, learned advocate states that he has received instructions to appear for and on behalf of the original complainant and sought

permission to appear on behalf of the original complainant and he shall file his Vakalatnama as well as affidavit of the original complainant before the

Registry. Permission; as sought for; stands granted. Registry shall accept the same. He further submits that learned Senior advocate Mr. N.D.

Nanavaty is appearing with him in this matter.

Rule returnable on 30th June, 2021. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent State. Learned advocate Mr.

Kunal Shah waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the original complainant.

Heard learned advocates for the applicant and learned advocate for the original complainant.

It was submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that in connection with the FIR, applicant was called upon by the higher authorities on

21.04.2021 and again on 1st May 2021 and his statement was not recorded. It was further submitted that several civil proceedings and revenue

proceedings were also pointed out to the police authorities but he has nothing to do with the power of attorney dated 27.01.1992. That, without

considering the documentary evidence furnished by the applicant and without considering the fact that the issue involved is purely of civil nature, the

FIR was registered on 05.05.2021 after delay of 29 years. That, some civil suits are pending and stayed. That, the impugned FIR has been filed

against Mr. K. K. Patel, who has already been expired and also joined the present applicant as an accused. However, applicant has no nexus with the

offence.

Learned advocate for the original complainant has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant and requested not to

grant any interim relief.

Considering the facts of the present case and delay caused in FIR as well as documents produced on record, let the investigating officer be directed

not to arrest the present applicant till returnable date.