IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 12599 of 2025 ========================================================== PATEL PRADIP S/O. ARVINDBHAI & ANR. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MR AA DAUDIVHORA(7516) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR KRUTIK PARIKH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 15/09/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for the following relief: “Be pleased to appoint an independent investigation agency for making independent investigation pertaining to the captioned offence and file detailed investigation report alongwith the relevant evidences in support thereof. Be further pleased to direct the investigation office to file exact report of the contraction;” 2. Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent – State of Gujarat and perusing the record, it appears that the petitioner has straightway approached this Court without appropriate remedy. 3. In view of the above, no case is made out to issue any direction in the present petition however, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Superme Court in the case of M. Subramaniam vs. S. Janki reported in (2020)16 SCC 728 as well as the decision in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage & Others reported in (2016)6 SCC 277, no case is made out to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of p. 2 India,the respondent authority is directed to look into the matter, without going into the merits, and inform the petitioner in writing about the same by assigning reasons in brief, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. If any adverse outcome, then the petitioner shall have liberty to file appropriate proceeding before appropriate forum / Court. It is hereby made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the case. Direct service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay