Gujarat High Court
Muhammed Raza Abdul Gafoor Shaikh vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 16 February, 2015
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
R/SCR.A/831/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION TO LODGE
FIR/COMPLAINT) NO. 831 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
=============================================
MUHAMMED RAZA ABDUL GAFOOR SHAIKH....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR NASIR SAIYED, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS HB PUNANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 16/02/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned APP Ms. Punani waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat.
2. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and Page 1 of 4 R/SCR.A/831/2015 JUDGMENT with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
3. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be directed to register the FIR against the accused persons in pursuant to the written complaint dated 24.01.2015 given by the petitioner.
4. Heard learned advocate Shri Nasir Saiyed for the petitioner and learned APP Ms. HB Punani for respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has given a written complaint on 24.01.2015 against the concerned persons for the socalled incident of 14.01.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 427, 395, 435, 436, 294B, 120B of Indian Penal Code. Learned advocate submitted that the said written complaint is duly received in the office of the respondent No.3 on 27.01.2015. However, till today, no steps are taken by the respondent police authorities for registration of the said complaint as an FIR. Learned advocate further submitted that as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Utter Pradesh, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, the respondent police authorities are bound to register the FIR if the written complaint of the petitioner discloses commission of cognizable offence.
6. On the other hand, learned APP Ms. Punani submitted that different persons have given 24 written complaints for the socalled incident of 14.01.2015 occurred at Hansot, District: Bharuch. Learned APP further submitted that even assuming without admitting that the grievance made by the petitioner is correct, then also the police Page 2 of 4 R/SCR.A/831/2015 JUDGMENT authority is not bound to register separate FIR for the incident which has occurred on the same day at the same place. If the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are of the opinion that the FIR is required to be registered then also 24 different FIRs are not required to be registered and FIR can be registered in one case and the other persons can give their statements as the witnesses.
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions canvassed on behalf of the learned advocates for the parties, it is clear that though the written complaint is given on 24.01.2015 to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, till today, no decision is taken by the respondent police authorities and therefore this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to examine the grievance of the petitioner made in the written complaint dated 24.01.2015, and after considering the same, if the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are of the opinion that the said complaint discloses commission of cognizable offence, the same shall be registered as an FIR. After considering the written complaint dated 24.01.2015, if the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are of the opinion that FIR is required to be registered then also it is open for the respondent police authorities to take appropriate decision in accordance with law for registration of one FIR taking into consideration the entire incident which is allegedly occurred on 14.01.2015 and to record the statements of the other victims as the witnesses. However, if the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are of the opinion that the said complaint does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence, they shall inform the petitioner in writing with brief reasons within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
8. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision that may be taken by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it is open for him to file a private Page 3 of 4 R/SCR.A/831/2015 JUDGMENT complaint before the concerned Magistrate Court.
9. It is clarified that I have not examined the allegations made by the petitioner in the written complaint dated 24.01.2015 and it is open for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.
10. With these observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Jani Page 4 of 4