Gujarat High Court
Raval Harshadkumar Dahyalal vs State Of Gujarat & 18 on 24 March, 2014
Author: Anant S. Dave
Bench: Anant S. Dave
R/SCR.A/3723/2013 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 3723 of 2013
================================================================
RAVAL HARSHADKUMAR DAHYALAL....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 18....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DAIFRAZ HAVEWALLA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JK SHAH, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date : 24/03/2014
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties.
2. This application is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :-
"(A) Quash and set aside the order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the Ld. Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha in Criminal Revision Application No.103 of 2012 and the order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talod, District :
Sabarkantha in Court Inquiry No. 0/2012, (B) Pending the admission and final hearing of the present petition be pleased to stay the execution and implementation of the order dated Page 1 of 6 R/SCR.A/3723/2013 ORDER 23.10.2013 passed by the Ld. Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha in Criminal Revision Application No.103 of 2012 and the order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talod, District :
Sabarkantha in Court Inquiry No. 0/2012;
(C) Pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice."
3. Brief facts of the case are as under :-
The applicant had filed a complaint on 20.10.2012 being Court Enquiry No.0/2012 against the respondents no. 2 to 19 herein. The said complaint was for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
Thereafter, on 01.11.2012, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talod recorded the verification of the applicant and the matter was adjourned to 07.11.2012 for further orders. On 07.11.2012 the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Code'). Upon verification of the complaint, which was recorded by the Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed the said complaint.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the learned Magistrate, Talod the present applicant preferred a Revision Application before Page 2 of 6 R/SCR.A/3723/2013 ORDER the Sessions Court which came to be numbered as Criminal Revision Application No.103 of 2012. The said Revision Application came to be rejected by the Sessions Court on 23.10.2013. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the orders passed by both the Courts, the present application has been filed.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. Daifraz Havewalla contends that both the Courts below have erred in not appreciating the fact the locus standi of the complainant is not material in criminal law. The duty of the complainant or the first informant under the criminal law is just to put the law in motion and no further audience can be given to the complainant. It is therefore submitted that for non-obtaining of sanction does not mean the complaint is required to be rejected. The requirement of sanction arises at the time of taking cognizance and therefore, the learned Magistrate could have directed investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code and before filing of the chargesheet, the sanction could have very well be obtained.
It is submitted that the consideration which has weighed with the Courts below is failure on part of the applicant in the Public Interest Litigation filed before the Gujarat High Court and if the records are perused, the material before the Public Interest Litigation Bench and contents of the complaint are different and therefore, when the accused had committed offences under Sections 420, 405, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) and 114 of the Page 3 of 6 R/SCR.A/3723/2013 ORDER Indian Penal Code, a case was made for the concerned Magistrate to order enquiry or alternatively to pass order under Section 156(3) of the Code. Further, dismissal of complaint filed by the applicant herein in exercise of powers under Section 203 of the Code by an order dated 07.11.2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talod as confirmed by the Appellate Court and confirmed by the Revisional Court in exercise of powers under Section 397 of the Code vide order dated 23.10.2013 both deserve to be quashed and set aside.
It is further submitted that in a case of illegal mining and excavation of material from the Government land, the private respondent herein committed the offences and therefore, also the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside as they are against the interest of the public at large and directions be given by this Court as prayed for in Paragraph 8 of the application.
5. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. J.K. Shah for the respondent - State, who has vehemently opposed grant of relief as prayed for.
6. Upon perusal of the records of the case and considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned Counsels for the parties, it appears on the record that earlier the applicant had preferred a Public Interest Litigation before this Court which came to be rejected. According to Page 4 of 6 R/SCR.A/3723/2013 ORDER the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talod, it was not made clear that what interest the applicant had in initiating / filing the criminal complaint seeking investigation / investigation and / or any damage caused to the complainant.
The Revisional Court again examined the record including the lease granted under the provisions of relevant rules of Mines or Mineral Development Rules, the panchnamas prepared by the Circle Officer, Talod and failure on part of the complainant in clearly stating certain facts on verification and duties performed by the Government Officer, in accordance with law. Further, the Expert Committee consisting of the Geologist, Mamlatdar and District Collector had submitted a Report to the High Court of Gujarat and accordingly, the lease holders and occupiers were permitted to continue lease and the Public Interest Litigation was disposed of.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am in complete agreement given by both the Courts below namely the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Revisional Court in rejecting the complaint of the applicant.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, in absence of merits, this application is rejected.
Sd/-
Page 5 of 6 R/SCR.A/3723/2013 ORDER
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.)
CAROLINE
Page 6 of 6