1. Heard Mr. Raju, learned senior advocate with Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. Kodekar, learned APP for the respondent. In view of the contentions raised by the learned senior advocate for the applicant and the request mentioned in the application as well as the order dated 15.6.2012 passed by the Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajesh H. Shukla) in Criminal Misc. Application No.3219 of 2012 and order dated 4.5.2012 passed by the Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajesh H. Shukla) in Criminal Misc. Application No.3219 of 2012 and order dated 8.5.2012 passed by the Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rajesh H. Shukla) in Criminal Misc. Application No.3219 of 2012, the application deserves consideration. Learned senior advocate for the applicant has heavily relied on the statement of the applicant that she had neither treated the concerned person nor she had issued the certificate and the certificate has been forged on her letterhead. He also submitted that though observed by the Court, the Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Thu Apr 27 03:28:47 IST 2017 R/CR.MA/15236/2012 ORDER procedure as per Section 340 of the Code has not been followed.
2. Learned APP submitted that he will examine the details to ascertain as to whether the procedure as per Section 340 of the Code has been followed or not. He, at this stage, prima facie, could not dispute the said submission. However, he submitted that the said aspect will be examined and ascertained by him.
3. Having regard to the said aspects and submissions by the learned senior advocate and the learned APP, RULE returnable on 26.12.2012.
4. By way of ad-interim direction, coercive steps may not be taken against the present applicant till the returnable date. However, the investigation may proceed further. It is clarified that the process of investigation is not stayed.
Direct Service is permitted.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) Bharat* Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Thu Apr 27 03:28:47 IST 2017