Vahatbhai @ Vasantbhai Laljibhai ... vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 12 March, 2014

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Vahatbhai @ Vasantbhai Laljibhai ... vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 12 March, 2014

Bench: Anant S. Dave

          R/SCR.A/2379/2013                                             ORDER




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

    SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 2379 of 2013

================================================================
       VAHATBHAI @ VASANTBHAI LALJIBHAI BHIMANI....Applicant(s)
                            Versus
              STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR BM MANGUKIYA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE

                                  Date : 12/03/2014


                                   ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following main prayer:

"[b] Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and direct the respondents to record first information report lodged by the present petitioner with Kamrej Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 465, 48, 471, 504, 506(2) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1870".

2 One of the main grievances of the petitioner against the respondent authorities for not recording FIR in relation to offences committed by some persons and according to the petitioner the said offences are punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 48, 471, 504, Page 1 of 3 R/SCR.A/2379/2013 ORDER 506(2) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in relation to land bearing survey No.477 being block No.496 of Village Kalavad, Taluka Kamrej, Dist. Surat admeasuring around 44 acres.

3 Mr. B.M.Mangukiya, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that an information was given in the form of complaint to the concerned Police Inspector of Kamrej Police Station about the manner in which land of the applicant was transferred and sold by executing bogus deeds and receiving consideration illegally. The above application was preferred on 08.01.2013. In addition to the above, the petitioner has made all efforts before the investigating team constituted to look into and redress grievance of aggrieved persons with regard to fraud in transaction of land and in spite of the above and making further grievance before the District Collector, FIR is not registered. Learned counsel relying on the decision of Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. reported in (2014)2 SCC 1 submits that it is mandatory for the police authority to register FIR under Section 154 of the Code if the information disclosed commission of cognizable offences and alternatively in case if according to the officer, information received does not disclose cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not and if the commission of a cognizable offence is noticed, the FIR must be registered and even action can be taken against the erring officers for not complying with the aforesaid direction. It is further submitted that in the facts of this case when the efforts made by the petitioner to get the FIR registered has yielded no results, the writ court can give directions in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. If the petition and the averments made therein are perused, it is Page 2 of 3 R/SCR.A/2379/2013 ORDER not in dispute that complaint given on 08.01.2013 disclosed that registered sale deed No.1765/2005 was registered on 25.03.2008 and a suit being Civil Suit No.347 of 2010 is filed in which court commissioner was appointed and in addition the above Section 154 mandates registration of FIR in case information disclosed cognizable offices, but in case if concerned police officer of incharge police station fails to register, the remedy is provided to complain to the concerned District Superintendent of Police and otherwise the remedy is available to file complaint before the concerned learned Magistrate. At this stage, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already approached the District Superintendent of Police, but no action is taken by the said authority.

5. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that still the petitioner has remedy in accordance with law viz. under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by approaching learned Magistrate of competent jurisdiction and to approach the respondent authority and in the facts and circumstances, no case is made out to grant prayer made in this petition to direct the police authorities to register FIR in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In absence of any merit, this petition stands dismissed.

(ANANT S.DAVE, J.) pvv Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court