Gujarat High Court
Shrenik Kirtilal Sheth vs State Of Gujarat & on 13 November, 2017
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
R/SCR.A/8582/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION - TO LODGE
FIR/COMPLAINT) NO. 8582 of 2017
==========================================================
SHRENIK KIRTILAL SHETH....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
ANILKUMAR N MUNDRA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
KURVEN K DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DHARMESH DEVNANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 13/11/2017
ORAL ORDER
1 By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has a grievance to redress as regards the inaction on the part of the police authorities in not registering the FIR pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner in writing to the Police Inspector of the Anandnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad dated 17th October 2017 at Annexure: 'A' to this petition (page: 12).
2 The Police Inspector of the Anandnagar Police Station shall look into the complaint and take a decision whether the same discloses commission of any cognizable offence or not. After perusal of the complaint and inquiry, if any, the Police Inspector of the Anandnagar Police Station is of the view that the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, in such circumstances, the First Information Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Mon Nov 13 23:14:47 IST 2017 R/SCR.A/8582/2017 ORDER Report be registered forthwith. However, if the Police Inspector of the Anandnagar Police Station is of the view that no case is made out for the registration of the FIR, then, in such circumstances, the petitioner be informed in writing about the same by giving reasons in brief within a period of fortnight from today.
3 The attention of the officer concerned is drawn to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others [(2017) 2 SCC 779], as contained in para 8:
"The exceptions that were carved out pertain to medical negligence cases as has been stated in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab [(2005) 6 SCC 1]. The Court also referred to the authorities in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras [(1970) 1 SCC 595] and CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh [(2003) 6 SCC 175] and finally held that what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible, etc. At the stage of registration of FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence."
4 With the above direction, this application is disposed of. I clarify that I have otherwise not gone into the merits of the matter. Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) chandresh Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Mon Nov 13 23:14:47 IST 2017