Gujarat High Court
Maharaja Arth Movers vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 18 April, 2017
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
R/SCR.A/2548/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION - TO LODGE
FIR/COMPLAINT) NO. 2548 of 2017
================================================================
MAHARAJA ARTH MOVERS, PARTNERSHI FIRM,....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
==============================================================================
Appearance:
MS LILU K BHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS NISHA THAKORE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 18/04/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. By this writapplication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: "(A) To admit and allow this petition. (B) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No.2 to forthwith register complaint pursuant to complaint dated 6.1.2014 of the petitioner. (C) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No.1 to forthwith transfer the investigation of this complaint to D.S.P. Patan and further be pleased to direct the D.S.P. Patan and Director, F.S.L. to complete the investigation and submit report of investigation within 30 days before this Hon'ble Court from the date of order of this Hon'ble Court.
(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the above petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the D.S.P. Patan and Director, F.S.L. to submit progress report of investigation made in this case pursuant to order dated 16.12.2015 of this Hon'ble Court within 10 days from the date of order.
(E) To pass such further orders as may be Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Tue Aug 15 20:09:32 IST 2017 R/SCR.A/2548/2017 ORDER necessary looking to the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. It appears that in the past the writ applicant had come before this Court by filing the Special Criminal Application No.1986 of 2015. The said writapplication came to be disposed of vide order dated 6th April, 2015 in the following terms" "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 Station Officer, Patan City 'B' Division Police Station, Patan dated 06.01.2014.
2. The Police Inspector, Patan City 'B' Division Police Station, Patan shall look into the complaint at Annexure'A' 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, Patan City 'B' Division Police Station, Patan is of the view that the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, in such circumstances, the First Information Report be registered forthwith. However, if the Police Inspector, Patan City 'B' Division Police Station, Patan 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. 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."
3. Thereafter, a Criminal Misc. Application No.15207 of 2015 came to be filed and the said application came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16th December, 2015. The order reads as under: Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Tue Aug 15 20:09:32 IST 2017 R/SCR.A/2548/2017 ORDER "By this application, the applicant points out that although this Court, vide order dated 6th April 2015 passed in Special Criminal Application No.1986 of 2015, directed the police to look into the complaint filed by the applicant herein with the Patan city BDivision Police Station, Patan, yet the Police Inspector of the concerned Police Station has declined to register the FIR principally on the ground that the dispute between the parties appears to be civil in nature. The case of the complainant is one of creating a forged and a bogus document. Such allegations made by the applicant are, prima facie, substantiated by the observations made by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Patan, in the order dated 4th December 2013 passed below Exh.67 and Exh.73 in Special Civil Suit No.33 of 2009.
It appears that the disputed document was not allowed by the Civil Court to be taken on record as the Civil Court found the same to have been created at a later stage and was not free from doubt. The Police Inspector of the Patan city BDivision Police Station, Patan, is once again directed to look into the matter from a different perspective in the sense that he may collect the disputed document alleged to have been prepared by the other side and may inquire into the genuineness of the same. After such inquiry, if he does not find substance, he may accordingly take an appropriate decision in that regard in accordance with law. Such exercise should be completed at the earliest preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the writ of the order. With the above, this application is disposed of. Direct service is permitted."
4. Ms. Bhaya, the learned counsel appearing for the writapplicant invited my attention to one order passed by a coordinate bench in Criminal Misc. Application No.20356 of 2013 filed by an accused and one another FIR being C.R. No.I213 of 2013 registered with the Patan City 'B' Division Police Station. The learned counsel invited my attention to the following observations made by a coordinate Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Tue Aug 15 20:09:32 IST 2017 R/SCR.A/2548/2017 ORDER bench in the said matter.
"Prima facie, it is impressed upon this Court that the petitioner in collusion with partners of Vikas Construction Company has committed an offence by manipulating and creating a false and forged valuable security with a mala fide intention to defeat the legal dues of the respondent No.2 using forged documents as genuine before the Civil Court. In this case, it would be necessary for the investigating agency to investigate the offence alleged. Considering the record, it cannot be said that the FIR is barred by provisions of Section 195 CrPC At this stage, Section 195[1](B)(22) CrPC would not be applicable, and therefore, FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 would be maintainable in accordance with law."
5. Till this date the preliminary inquiry is going on. I am informed that the specimen signatures have been obtained. In this type of matter whether a preliminary inquiry was necessary is a question more particularly when more than a prima facie case is made out. This is a case in which the Police should have registered the FIR and carried out the investigation in accordance with law. I expect the Officer concerned to immediately act accordingly and do the needful in accordance with law at the earliest.
6. With the above, this writapplication is disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Manoj Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Tue Aug 15 20:09:32 IST 2017