I filed FIR against accused I 200/04 at Maninagar Police Station. One of the accused is son of RSS Ahmedabad President in Maninagar and has political support from top level. This was filed in 2004. Police took 8 months to investigate and never arrested the accused and in 8 months, police helped the accused in recording wrong statement and then filed C-Summary.
Question is : Should Police have first arrested the accused before filing C-Summary?
C Summary has wrong content that differ from material facts on evidence. So I filed a review petition u/s 156(3) at Ahmedabad metro court but the court totally ignored my points that I was trying to highlight on wrongdoings and document forgery and how police on purpose recorded wrong info from record on FIR and approved C-Summary. Court took a stand that the errors were oversight!!!!
This judgement has huge impact because the accused will use this now on their 138 case where one of the accused tampered bank records and replaced his picture in account opening form with his Dad's. There are many irregularities in the account opening form. The same accused had earlier given me cheques that cleared but now on the bounced cheque, against his own signature, he has his dad's pic and is trying to prove in 138 matter that he is not guilty as he is not a partner. Partnership records destroyed, stop payment letters fabricated, account opening form tampered. and police and judiciary working on conjunction in Gujarat to the tunes of politicians.
I have also filed RTI (Attached) to seek more details on how the investigation was done but police is not responding saying that the files/report are in court and they cannot do anything now.
What options I have now?
1) Can I register fresh FIR?
2) Protest Petition - where?
3) Challenge Metro Court order of accepting C-Summary in Sessions/High Court?
*** Latest info I have now in 138 matter is both accused and Bank Manager has again giving a contradictory and different statement on oath i.e in 2002, they produced stop payment letter dated 7/10/2000 and in 2012, they produced a new letter of 7/11/2000.
Would appreciate if someone can respond to both Part 1 and Part 2.