Heard Mr.Mehul Rathod, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr.K.P.Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1-State. Mr.Tushar Chaudhary, learned advocate for the respondent no.2-Complainant has chosen not to remain present.
Considering the submissions advanced by Mr.Mehul Rathod, learned advocate for the applicants and more particularly, perusing the papers annexed with this application viz. documents dated 02.01.2004 and the revenue record, so also the first complaint filed before the police by the respondent no.2-complainant and the report dated 01.01.2011 filed by the Investigating Officer pursuant to said complaint / application of the respondent no.2, Mr.Mehul Rathod, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that subsequently, alleging the identical facts, respondent no.2-complainant filed the instant F.I.R. on 18.02.2011. Hence, considering facts and circumstances of the case, Rule returnable on 27th March,2012.
Mr.K.P.Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1-State waives service of Rule for the respondent no.1-State. There shall be interim-relief in terms of Para-8(b).
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,J.) Girish Top