1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner-original complainant to quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 63/1997 as well as the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in Criminal Inquiry Case No. 64/1995 dated 19/08/1997 by which both the Courts below have accepted the 'C' Summary submitted by the Investigating Officer with prosecution.
2. The petitioner-original complainant filed private Complaint, being Criminal Inquiry Case No. 64/1995 against respondents nos. 1 to 3 herein-original accused in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himatnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 427, 447 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code alleging interalia that the accused persons, who were serving with Himatnagar Nagarpalika, have demolished the cabin occupied by the petitioner and damaged the goods. The learned Magistrate passed an order sending the said Complaint for police investigation Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, thereafter, the Investigating Officer submitted the 'C' Summary report, which was opposed by the petitioner-original complainant and, therefore, the learned Magistrate did not accept the 'C' Summary and ordered reinvestigation in the matter. Thereafter, after reinvestigation the Investigating Officer again submitted the 'C' Summary report, which came to be accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 19/08/1997 by observing that the accused persons have removed the cabin in exercise of the powers while performing their statutory duties. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Himatnagar dated 19/08/1997 accepting the 'C' Summary submitted by the Investigating Officer the petitioner-original complainant preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 63/1997 before the learned Sessions Court, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar vide impugned judgment and order dated 08/04/1999 dismissed the said Revision Application confirming the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepting the 'C' summary report. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid two orders the petitioner-original complainant has preferred the present Special Criminal Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Shri Japee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-original complainant has vehemently submitted that both the Courts below have materially erred in accepting the 'C' Summary report submitted by the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that as such there was no material before the learned Magistrate to come to the conclusion that there was an order passed by the Chief Officer of the Nagarpalika to remove the cabin. It is submitted that solely relying upon the statement of the accused both the Courts below have accepted the 'C' Summary report, which deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Respondent no. 3-original accused no. 3 is reported to have died and, therefore, the present petition is dismissed as having been abated so far as respondent no. 3-original accused no. 3 is concerned.
5. Heard Shri Japee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-original complainant and Shri L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
6. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of respondents nos. 1 and 2.
7. Having heard Shri Japee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-original complainant and considering the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accepting the 'C' Summary report submitted by the Investigating Officer and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned revisional Court dismissing the said revision application confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate it appears that cogent reasons have been given by both the Courts below accepting the 'C' Summary report submitted by Investigating Officer. It has been found by both the Courts below that the cabin of the petitioner, which was on the public road, has been removed by the original accused, employees of the Nagarpalika while performing their statutory duties and it has been found that the dispute seems to be of civil nature. There are concurrent findings of fact given by both the Courts below accepting the 'C' summary, which is not required to be interfered with in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, when it has come on record that the order has been passed by the Chief Officer of the Nagarpalika to remove the cabin, which was on public road.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present petition fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) siji