[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jitendrakumar Dhulabhai Patel on 4 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/626/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 626 of 2007
With
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 603 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JITENDRAKUMAR DHULABHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the Respondent(s) No. 8
MR MA KHARADI(1032) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. ALTAF Y CHARKHA(7271) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,6,7
MS. PAURAMI B. SHETH(841) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 04/05/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
1) In Criminal Revision Application No. 626/2007, the applicant - State
of Gujarat and in Criminal Revision Application No. 626/2007, the
applicant - complainant, both have filed present revision applications
under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 and have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated
29.08.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Godhra,
passed below Exh:16 in Sessions Case No.86/2007, whereby, learned
Sessions Judge has been pleased to reject the application filed under
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/626/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C for further investigation came to be rejected
and thereby, be pleased to direct the Investigating Agency to make
further investigation in this case.
2) As both the revision applications arising out of same incident, both
were heard together and are hereby disposed of by this common
judgment.
3) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
4) It is the case of the original complainant that the complainant -
revisionist has lodged FIR being I-C.R. No.56/2007 for the offence
under Sections 292, 376, 406, 420, 228(A), 188, 120(B) and 201 of IPC,
Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Section 4 of the
Indecent Presentation of Women (Prohibition) Act on 16.03.2007 for
the incident occurred in October, 2006. After investigation,
chargesheet came to be filed which was culminated into Sessions
Case No. 86 /2007, which is pending for adjudication before the
learned Sessions Court. In the said proceedings, the complainant had
preferred an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C for further
investigation in the matter alleging that due to defective
investigation and glaring discrepancies in the investigation, serious
prejudice is caused to the complainant.
5) It is the case of the complainant that accused No. 1 recorded obscene
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/626/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
and vulgar video clippings of the complainant on his Nokia 6600
mobile phone. After capturing such material, the accused allegedly
threatened the complainant and committed rape upon her. It is
further alleged that the investigating officer recovered the mobile
phone in the presence of panch witnesses; however, no verification
was carried out to ascertain whether the video clips in the mobile
phone and the CD were actually of the complainant. From the
chargesheet, it appears that the investigating officer did not
investigate this aspect at all. It is further the case of the complainant
that accused No. 2 supplied the said nude clips to accused Nos. 3 and
4, and accused No. 4 voluntarily handed over a CD from his residence
to the investigating officer. However, the investigating officer failed
to verify whether the CD and its contents actually pertained to the
complainant, and such verification was not conducted in the presence
of panch witnesses. Further, respondent No. 5, who runs a computer
shop at Kalol and allegedly prepared the CD, voluntarily handed it
over in the presence of panch witnesses. The investigating officer
took custody of the said CD but again failed to verify its contents in
their presence. It is also the complainant's case that respondent No. 5
provided CDs containing obscene photographs and video clips to the
friends of accused No. 2, namely respondent Nos. 6, 7, and 8, who in
turn voluntarily handed over the CDs to the investigating officer in
the presence of panch witnesses. These CDs were seized under
separate panchnamas. However, no verification was conducted to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/626/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
confirm whether the seized CDs actually contained the alleged
obscene material of the complainant. It is further alleged that
respondent No. 9, a reporter with the daily newspaper Gujarati
Samachar, voluntarily handed over a CD to the investigating officer,
which was found to contain nude photographs and objectionable
material of the complainant. A panchnama to that effect was drawn.
However, no investigation was conducted to ascertain whether such
material was published in the newspaper or to identify the person
who supplied such material for publication. Further investigation is
therefore sought on these aspects. It is also alleged that no
investigation whatsoever was carried out under Section 67 of the
Information Technology Act. Although the chargesheet has been filed
under Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women
(Prohibition) Act, no proper investigation was conducted regarding
the auditor or publisher of the news item, nor was the statement of
the website manager recorded, which is essential to establish the said
offence. It is further alleged that relevant electronic evidence,
including data from the mobile phone and CDs (including deleted
data), was not properly examined. In such facts of the case, it is
contended that present revision applications may be allowed as
prayed for.
6) The present applications have been opposed by the accused parties
mainly on the ground that, upon completion of the investigation, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/626/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
chargesheet has already been filed and the muddamal is required to
be handed over to the complainant. It is contended that if the same is
returned, it may prejudice the case of the accused, and the possibility
of tampering cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted that no
specific direction or justification has been provided as to why further
investigation is necessary. It is also argued that the CD in question has
already been seized and sent to the FSL, and a mere technical glitch
cannot be a ground for ordering further investigation, which at best
may amount to a defective investigation. However, the fact remains
that the CD has been recovered and duly forwarded to the FSL. Upon
perusal of the FSL dispatch note, it appears that the FSL receipt is
produced at Mark 12/24, and along with the FSL report in a sealed
cover, photographs of the complainant have also been sent to the
FSL. In light of the above, the learned counsel for the respondents
has prayed for dismissal of the revision applications.
7) Upon consideration of the aforesaid facts, the alleged incident
occurred in the year 2007. The chargesheet has already been filed,
and thereafter the present application came to be preferred by the
complainant. It is noted that the FSL report has now been received.
The objectionable material and photographs, which are alleged to be
either of the complainant or resembling the complainant and/or the
accused, were sent to the FSL under Mark No. KLM, whereas the
Nokia mobile phone recovered from the accused was forwarded
under Mark A-H. With regard to Articles A-H, including the CDs and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/626/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
photographs, queries were raised before the FSL as to whether such
data was present in the memory of the device and whether the
contents in the CDs were available therein. The learned APP has
submitted that the FSL report in this regard has now been received.
8) In view of the above, since the FSL report concerning the alleged
obscene material has already been received, this Court is of the
considered opinion that no error has been committed by the learned
Sessions Judge. This is particularly in light of the fact that the CDs,
objectionable material, and primary electronic evidence, including the
Nokia mobile phone and memory card, were duly sent to the FSL for
examination. The mere fact that, at the time of drawing the
panchnama, the CDs were not shown to the panch witnesses cannot
be a ground for directing further investigation, especially when such
a course may further defame the victim. The learned Sessions Judge
has rightly observed that it remains open for the complainant to lead
further evidence, including the examination of the FSL officer, who is
cited as a witness. Considering that the evidence in question is largely
electronic and volatile in nature, and that the request for drawing a
panchnama or further verification has been made after a considerable
lapse of time nearly 19 years, no useful purpose would be served by
ordering further investigation at this belated stage, particularly when
the FSL report is already on record. In view of the volatile nature of
electronic data and the fact that the primary evidence has already
been examined by the FSL and a report has been received, this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/626/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
finds that the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in
rejecting the application for further investigation.
9) Even otherwise, this Court is of the considered view that, having
regard to the nature of the alleged offence and the scope of further
investigation as sought for, the relevant data is electronic and volatile
in nature. Since the alleged offence took place in October 2006, the
possibility of recovering or collecting such material at this stage is
minimal, and the sanctity and reliability of any such evidence would
be highly questionable. In view of the efflux of time, no fruitful
purpose would be served by permitting further investigation. On this
ground as well, the application does not merit consideration.
10) In this regard, reference may be made to the decision in K. Vadivel v.
K. Shanthi & Ors., reported in (2024) INSC 746, wherein it has been
held that further investigation cannot be permitted to conduct a
roving or fishing inquiry once the police has already filed the
chargesheet. There must exist cogent and justifiable reasons for
entertaining an application for further investigation, which must be
assessed in light of the peculiar facts and attendant circumstances of
each case. The object of further investigation is ultimately to arrive at
the truth; however, in the present case, no such ground emerges
from the record warranting such a course. The matter pertains to an
incident alleged to have occurred in October 2006, and the case has
been pending since 2007. Society at large has a legitimate
expectation that justice will be delivered within a reasonable time. It
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/626/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
is beyond cavil that a speedy trial is an essential facet of the rule of
law. However, adverting to the submissions of the learned counsel
for the complainant, Mr. Mangukiya has mainly contended that
although the chargesheet has been filed under Section 4 of the
Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act and Section 67
of the Information Technology Act, certain aspects remain
uninvestigated. It is submitted that though accused No.8 (respondent
No. 9 herein), a press reporter of a well-known daily newspaper, has
been arraigned as an accused, the publisher and other concerned
persons have not been joined as accused, nor have their statements
been recorded. A perusal of Section 4 of the Indecent Representation
of Women (Prohibition) Act reveals that it prohibits the publication,
sale, distribution, or circulation of any material--such as books,
pamphlets, papers, slides, films, writings, drawings, paintings,
photographs, or figures containing indecent representation of
women. In the present case, as per the allegations, the concerned
reporter has already been arraigned as an accused. Nevertheless, the
complainant is at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedies for
ventilating her grievance, including filing an application under Section
311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Section 319 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, as may be advised. In the event such
applications are filed, or if relevant material comes during the course
of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge shall decide the same
independently on its own merits, without being influenced by any
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/626/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
observations made in this order
11) For the foregoing reasons, no case is made out to pass any order for
further investigation and that too after a span of 19 years.
Accordingly, both revision applications are dismissed. Interim relief,
if any, stands vacated. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned trial court.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
