1. Heard learned Advocates for both sides.
2. Mr. Keyur A. Vyas, learned Advocate for the applicants has pointed out that he has filed one additional affidavit on 26th of December, 2012 after providing its copies to the other side. By means of such affidavit, he has produced final report submitted by the Police Inspector, Sola police station, Ahmedabad, which is on record at page no. 73. By such report, police has submitted "B" Summary in which it is stated that there is no evidence and, therefore, no case is made out. It is further stated that the police has observed that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature but because of increase in price of land, complaint was filed to get some more money. Therefore, Mr. Vyas for the applicants prayed that this petition be allowed as prayed for in para 14(A) of the petition.
3. Mr. J.V. Vaghela, learned Advocate appearing for learned Advocate Mr. R.J. Goswami for the respondent no. 2 submits that they have not yet received the intimation regarding final report from the trial court, therefore, it is not ascertained whether trial court has accepted such "B" Summary report or not and hence, this petition cannot be allowed as prayed solely on such count of "B" Summary report submitted by the police, which is yet to be scrutinized by the judicial authority being trial court where Complaint M. Case No. 2 of 2007 is pending which was stayed by this Court, vide order dated 28th of December, 2007.
4. The fact remains that this petition was filed in the year 2007 wherein by order dated 28th December, 2007 an interim relief in terms of para 14(B) of the petition, was granted. In para 14(B) of the petition, it was prayed to stay further investigation and proceedings of Complaint M. Case No. 2 of 2007 filed by the respondent no. 2 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Rural). However, insofar as, Complaint being M. Case No. 2 is concerned, its number seems to be incorrect, inasmuch as, in "B" Summary report dated 28th March, 2008 submitted by the police before the trial court, copy of which is produced on record at page 73, discloses M. Case No. 12 of 2007.
5. Therefore, though there is a serious issue regarding investigation and final report of "B" Summary by the Investigating Officer after 28th December, 2007 when further investigation and proceeding of such complaint case was stayed by this Court, at present I do not want to enter into such issue at this stage, more particularly, when matter is to be disposed of for taking necessary steps by the trial court in accordance with law in view of change circumstances after filing the petition, that is, investigation is over, and "B" Summary report is filed by the police. Respondent no. 2-original complainant may take appropriate steps as per law.
6. However, this Court does not enter into the merits of the case to come to such conclusion and, therefore, it would be open for the trial court to dealt with the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. dated 28th December, 2008 filed before it, in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to both sides to submit their rival submissions. It is made clear that this Court does not endorse the averments made by the police in its report dated 28th March, 2008 which is produced on record of this case. The trial court has to decide the correctness of report dated 28th March, 2008 submitted by the police in accordance with law.
7. In view of above observations, this petition is disposed of. Rule discharged.
(S.G.SHAH, J.) ak verma