Mahendra Kantilal Soni vs State Of Gujarat on 25 September, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Mahendra Kantilal Soni vs State Of Gujarat on 25 September, 2018

Bench: R.P.Dholaria

         R/SCR.A/8155/2018                                             ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

         R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8155 of 2018

==========================================================
                             MAHENDRA KANTILAL SONI
                                    Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEVAL N MODI(5911) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR KISHAN R CHAKWAWALA(9846) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR RM CHAKWAWALA(1519) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3
MR. L. B. DABHI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA

                                   Date : 25/09/2018

                                       ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Mr. L. B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of rule on behalf of respondent - State.

2. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 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 19th July, 2018 addressed to the Police Inspector, Bopal Police Page 1 of 3 R/SCR.A/8155/2018 ORDER Station, Bopal, Ahmedabad.

3. The Police Inspector, Bopal Police Station, Bopal, Ahmedabad, is directed to take into consideration the complaint filed by the petitioner in writing (Annexure - A to this petition) and after going through the same, take a decision, whether the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence or not. Police authority shall follow the directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari V/s. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 as well as in the case of State of Telangana V/s. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others reported in (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 today. Page 2 of 3

R/SCR.A/8155/2018 ORDER

4. 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.

5. 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.

(R.P.DHOLARIA, J) RAVI PATEL Page 3 of 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court