Jagdishbhai Maganbhai Vasava vs State Of Gujarat on 2 July, 2019

[Cites 7, Cited by 2]

Gujarat High Court

Jagdishbhai Maganbhai Vasava vs State Of Gujarat on 2 July, 2019

Bench: A.S. Supehia

        R/SCR.A/5287/2018                                           ORDER



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5287 of 2018
==========================================================
                    JAGDISHBHAI MAGANBHAI VASAVA
                                Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                              Date : 02/07/2019
                               ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.

2. By this writapplication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has a grievance to redress as regards the inaction on the part of the police authority in not registering the First Information Report pursuant to the complaint lodged by him in writing dated 17.06.2018 addressing the Police Inspector, Rajpipla Town Police Station, Narmada.

3. The Police Inspector, Rajpipla Town Police Station, Narmada, is directed to take into consideration the complaint filed by the petitioner in writing and after going through the same, take a decision, whether the same discloses commission of a Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 00:34:22 IST 2019 R/SCR.A/5287/2018 ORDER cognizable offence or not. Police authority shall follow the directions issued by Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anr., 2014(2) SCC 1 as well as in the case of State of Telangana V/s. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others,(2017) 2 SCC 779. After taking into consideration the complaint and other materials, if any, the Police Inspector is of the view that the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then appropriate directions be issued for registration of the FIR forthwith at the concerned Police Station. However, the Police Inspector, after going through the materials, is of the view that no case is made out for registration of the FIR, then in such circumstances, he shall inform the petitioner in writing about the same by assigning reasons in brief, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court.

4. It is needless to say that this Court has not opined about commission of the alleged offences and, therefore, it would be open for the suspects or those persons, who may be made an accused in the FIR, to file an application u/s.438 or Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate Court, including an application u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and/or any petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 00:34:22 IST 2019

R/SCR.A/5287/2018 ORDER

5. With the above observations and directions, this petition is disposed of. I clarify that I have otherwise not gone into the merits of the matter. For any reason, if the police authorities refuse to register the FIR, it shall be open for the petitioner to avail of the remedy under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Direct service is permitted.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) NVMEWADA Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 10 00:34:22 IST 2019

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court