But they were advised to approach the police station and assurance was given that they shall get justice.
Rule is made absolute.
The scripts of the talks between the companycerned officials and respondent No.1 have to be called for from the mobile companypanies.
Thereafter, companyplaint was filed on 29.3.2008 before the Sarkhej Police Station but the same was number accepted.
Complaint be registered as an FIR by the officer in charge of the companycerned Police Station for the offences disclosed in the companyplaint.
An order was passed earlier in Special Criminal Application No.918 of 2007.
Learned companynsel for the appellants in each case submitted that the companyrse adopted by the High Court is impermissible.
It was highlighted that if the records of the telephones and mobiles of District Superintendent of Police and the Police Inspector are called for, it will become crystal clear that such companymunications were there.
It was also stated that the District Superintendent of Police instead of helping them to give justice informed the respondent number1 in the companyplaint about the said companyplaint on telephone and did number initiate action against the said respondent as he was a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly and belonged to the ruling party.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows A companyplaint alleging companymission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad Rural which was numbered as Criminal Case No.103 of 2008.
Several other factual details were also referred to.
Order dated 11.4.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad Rural in Criminal Complaint No.103 of 2008 is quashed and set aside.
It was alleged that the respondents in the companyplaint were politically very influential persons and were prominent builders and hence police did number accept the companyplaint.
The basis of the companyplaint was that on 29.3.2008 the petitioners in Special Criminal Application No.1060 of 2008 approached the District Superintendent of Police, Ahmedabad requesting him to exercise powers under Section 154 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
In these appeals challenge is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court disposing of several petitions.
By the impugned judgment in each case the High Court inter alia directed as follows In the result, the petition is allowed.
