1. In this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “the Code”), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.4.2007 below Exhs.1 and 24 in Criminal Case No.350 of 2005 passed by learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajkot vide which his application for further investigation by the Investigating Officer has been rejected.
2. The petitioner approached the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot by filing the complaint for the offences punishable under sections 323, 392, 427, 451, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code read with section 25(c) of the Arms Act and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act against respondent No.3 – Police Officer making allegation regarding extortion of money and causing damage to the glass. On receipt of the complaint, learned Magistrate, by order dated 19.9.2005 ordered inquiry under section 202 of the Code. The respondent No.2 – Police Commissioner was directed to conduct the inquiry by himself or through any of his officer and submit the report to the learned Magistrate by 17.10.2005. After conducting the inquiry, the Investigating Officer submitted the report in the court of learned Magistrate on 11.11.2005. On the basis of this report, learned Magistrate vide the impugned order dismissed the complaint.
3. It will be pertinent to mention here that before passing of the final order by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner even approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.370 of 2007 which was disposed of as withdrawn.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record with the help of the lawyer.
5. A perusal of the inquiry report shows that apart from recording the statements of the complainant and respondent No.3, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the witnesses cited by the complainant. The witnesses have not at all supported the case of the complainant, rather, as per the statements of the witnesses, nobody was present in the shop when the alleged incident has taken place. The petitioner has failed to establish any animosity or bias attitude against the Investigating Officer. In absence of anything contrary, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is liable to dismissed being devoid of any merits.
6. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.
(Mohinder Pal,J) pathan