Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Chandubhai Gadhia vs State Of Gujarat & 6 on 19 March, 2014
Author: G.R.Udhwani
Bench: G.R.Udhwani
R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 951 of 2014
================================================================
BHARATBHAI CHANDUBHAI GADHIA....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 6....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AB PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.AKASH J PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. PRAKASH JANI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 19/03/2014
ORAL ORDER
1. The petition is filed with following cause title.
1. Bharatbhai Chandubhai Gadhia 10, Baijanwala complex, Opp. Old SMC Zone Office, Rander Road, Tadwadi, Surat.
Vs.
1. State of Gujarat (Notice to be served through Public Prosecutor High Court of Gujarat) Page 1 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER
2. Police Inspector Katargam Police Station, Katargam, Surat
3. Police Commissioner Surat Police Commissioner Govt. of Guj. Police Bhavan, Athavalines, Surat
4. Home Secretary G.O.G. Home deptt, New Sachivalay, Gandhinagar.
5. Chief Secretary G.O.G. Chief Minister Office.
Swarniam Sankul, New Sachivalay, Gandhinagar.
6. Chief Minister G.O.G Narendra Modi Chief Minister Office Swarniam Sankul, New Sachivalay Gandhinagar.
Page 2 of 35
R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER
7. Director General of Police G.O.G Sector18, Police Bhavan Gandhinagar.
2. The averments and the prayers are as under.
(1). The petitioners are the citizens of India and therefore entitle of rights enshrined under the Constitution of India.
It is a social contracts with the citizen of India to challenge the executive and administrative power to precise definition. Police power is charge with duty and responsibility the state government does not go against the provision of constitution or a rule of law and Supreme Court dictum state police authority are subjected to constitution and there are limits and restrictions with the list 1,2, 3 and concurrent list under the constitution of India. State government or its officers in exercise of police power or a executive authority cannot infringe citizen rights so Page 3 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER the exercise of a function legislative or judicial authority is also entrusted by legislation to the executive authority. So before this public policy, for Public interest public good. All Court is armed with discretionary powers to cure the injury of the people's rights. Citizen's rights and rule of law are Superior force for the community. So, to enforce dynamics and genuine constitutional enforcement majority of people of India and society wanted a social sociated force stronger than the majority to protect arbitrary unreasonable manners of act capriciously or at pleasure of police. To solve the dishonest intention and malafideness of state government must be constrain. The conflict between rules and state law circular or executive instruction and rule making power and challenge against the constitution validity a substantive rights the obligations must be construed. State Page 4 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER authority and its officers cannot throughout the rule of the law of Supreme Court in astray with result to hardship to common people.
(2) To registered the FIR. To correct, the approach abuse of power Hon'ble High Court has a wide power to change the system of police department and state executive and administrative authority under policy and the police accountability under the philosophy of the law which must be adhered to by valid policy decisions by the Courts judgment which are under challenge before this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court should critically examine the material placed before this Court to demonstrable justification.
(3) In our original complaint before JMFC court the present petition has made a party in the proceedings against whom malafide are alleged so it is a legal necessity to join Page 5 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER the higher officers and ministers as a party in this proceedings. The violation of fundamental rights of the complainant and breach of rule of law. Can be rectify with the doctrine of morality of law. The present petitioners request to the Hon'ble Court to command the judicial officers powers over police authorities to purify, confusion, fear, chaos, abuse of power, colourable power exercise, sham documents created by state, wrong application system which damage the mandate of CRPC154 rules of morality of duty is prescribed what is necessary for social living and as a general idea of perfection in police station to registered FIR, legal justice concept human effort is essential to maintain any system of law. The substantive aims of law and excellence in administrative for fitting conduct of police is necessary on moral scale and it is obvious demand of social contracts under the constitution of India. Page 6 of 35
R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER (4) The present petitioners submit that
elements of legality and state authority lawlessness is a problem of due process of law. In definite extension of power to state police stations are injurious to the society, hence restriction on their power by judiciary is necessary. So, contradictions in administrative actions and disobey of the Supreme Court rule is a core question before this Hon'ble Court. To use of novel judicial remedy broad magisterial terms principles and precedents are necessary to control the malafideness of police authority and the state higher officer's and unilaterally defective FIR register system. Our constitution philosophy does not permit disobey of rule of law and courts never tolerates disregards of law to settle the lawful government legal police system strict treatment of lawless power and whims of that power must be controlled.
We cannot tolerate chaos everyday
Page 7 of 35
R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER
everything happen under the police powers (state). Powers without legal basis it effects most human problems discriminate justice system. So, interference by this Hon'ble Court is necessary to secure the end of justice.
(5) In our constitutions we have a sufficient checks against encroachment on this own department by their exposition of law. Judicial authority rules runs all the risks of a government to conduct and control it is explicit fundamental law and real social contracts that ended legislative omnipotence law. Administration of states denied the fundamental law of CRPC and sidetrack the constitution act without the lawful authority. Democracy view of "to the people" view the whole people public policy and constitution has a law at state cognizable in court same where judicial responsibility are comparable with fundamental law are cognizable in court. If Page 8 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER action of the police officers not to register FIR is a unlawful act and against the constitution also with the public or political not a legal act. The force of a real social contracts significantly by the rule of the law.
(6) The constitution of a state is a rule to the legislative only and not to the judiciary or the executive, if state officers police officers transgress their limits court will punish for disobey the rule. Constitution is a rule to all the departments to the government to the judiciary as well as to the legislature and judiciary are bound to take notice of the constitution as the first law. Petitioner pray before the Hon'ble Court to take notice of the constitution of India. Because in its reality and explain it is a rule to all departments with equality of branches as a final principle of people voice. As a validity laws, so courts have a exclusive rights amenable to judicial Page 9 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER application and interpretation with legal responsibility. So the spirit of constitution and moral rectitude principal of social alliance are necessary to control the police departments in every free government. (7) To the public democratic system emphasis law cognizable in Court. So, constitution has a social contract of the natural law basis of limited government or of a judicial enforcement as a substitute for revolution. So, legislation or administrative act or notification or a circular or a executive instruction contrary to the constitution can't be valid, the courts are design to be an intermediate body between the people and legislative in order among other things to keep the latter within the limit assign to their authority. (8) A constitution is a fact and must be regarded by the judges as a fundamental law so to protect people rights and allied laws of CRPC which are fundamental law Page 10 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER cognizable in court and to ascertain its meaning Morden judicial review and judicial exportation is necessary. Thus, essential safe guard against the misuse of power by the respondents activities not to register FIR is a malafide and injurious to the society . We have to see the violation of principle not a text. Legal check into the hands of judiciary coupled with powers resists every encroachment of police power which are motivated by political use must be legal check as a familiar system of checks and balance in popular republic term must be established.
(9) The ultimate power of the society violated by the state police departments are under control of judiciary to curb abuse of power by government officers. Republication remedy for the disuse most incident to republic antigovernment. So, rights generated cannot be denied of basis black rights. Police stations are become Page 11 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER as on today potential violators. Apprehension of control by judiciary is a present urgent need to stop the corrupt practice in the society. So, the link with the judiciary power over the police powers when violation of constitution and rule of law appears directly by conduct also hence this petition is base on public reorganisation of a right to revolutions a peoples inherent powers to remove the confusions and fountain of power our constitution true meaning must be motivated.
(10) Petitioner submits that petitioner has preferred present petition for quashing the order of third JMFC Court, Surat. Order dt:10/2/14 in Criminal Mis. App.no. 74/2014 under exhibit 1 annex." A & B". (11) Petitioner submit that Criminal Misc. Cri. Application No. 74/2014 under exhibit 1 annex" A & B".
(12) Petitioner submit that Criminal Misc. Page 12 of 35
R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER Application No. 74/2014, Annex A is under IPC166(A) read with CRPC 154,156(3) and under Article 14, 19, 21 entry no. 2 concurrent list of constitution of India. Article 254(1), Article 256, Article 366(10) concurrent list no. 3 criminal law and rule of Supreme Court. Article 236 read with Article 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, etc. complaint presented on dated 29th January 2014 and notice was issued against P.I. Katargam & Police Commissioner Surat to remain present before Court on dated 30th January 2014 on that day no one present and disobey the notice of JMFC Court. Hence, Court has order to remain present to the all accused personally on dated 7th February 2014 and issue the notice as per law. AnnexA, present petitioner also submitted DE list AnnexC, dated 18th January 2014 notice by advocate, annexD, petitioners original complaint annnexE, collectors of Page 13 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER Surat SIT order annexF, deputy collector order annexG, newspaper Akila news dated 7th March 2013 about FIR Supreme Court decision. Along with AIR 2014 SC 187 rule of the Court judgment and amended IPC166(A) paper. Notice by JMFC court annexI. Notice by JMFC annexJ, reply of Katargam PSI annexK, register AD. Process annexL, reply of PI Katargam police station annexM, DElist of respondent PI annexN, DElist of respondent PI annexO, DElist annexP, original complaint of petitioner annexQ, summons Rasid by PI Katargam annexR, so cold statement dated 17th November 2013 by petitioner before investigation officer Katargam annexS, DGP and public prosecutor of Surat. Exhibit10, appearance annexT, legal department letter dated 5th February 2014 exhibit11 annexU, DGP application for dispense with presence annexV, objection against DGP Page 14 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER appearance on behalf of accused exibit13 annexW, to take cognizance and bail of accused application exhibit14 by petitioner advocate annexW1, application by petitioner advocate annexW1, application by petitioner advocate with objection to start prosecution exhibit15 annex W2. Application by petitioner advocate for contempt of court to issue NBW exibit16, annexW3, authority list with citation by petitioners advocate exibit 17 annexX and notice by JMFC court annexY. All these annexure are in connection with the complaint before the Court of justice under IPC20 definition of Court of justice to obey the rule of the court dictum of Supreme Court AIR 2014 SC 187 to punish the officer under IPC166(A) is a core issue of this petition.
(12) Being a arrived and dissatisfy by the order dated 10th February 2014 of third JMFC Court Surat Annex "B" in Mis. Cri. Page 15 of 35
R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER Application No. 74/2014 order passed by the Court without application of mind. Present petitioner submit following amongst other grounds as below.
Grounds (A) Because the order passed by the learned court below AnnexA is contrary to rule of law AIR 2014 SC 187 read with IPC166(A) totally wrong judgment not known to CRPC as a "nonest" order. (B) Because the learned court below has erred in exercising the jurisdiction vested in it, order completely unknown to law must be "nullity" to be wholly without jurisdiction as "void" as "nonest". In eye of law.
© Because learned court below has erred to "file" the complaint, because in CRPC there is only "conviction" or "acquittal" or "discharge" procedure in CRPC. There is no provision to "file" the case.
Page 16 of 35
R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER (D) Because the learned judge must have
to hear exibit13,14,15,16 annexw, w1,w2,w3 without hearing application and "dropped" and without reading all authority sited which was not considered annexx is a gross error of justice. (E) Because the learned judge has erred to grant appearance on behalf of accused and "drop" the exhibit 13,14, 15, 16 is unknown to the law in CRPC. Hence it is "nonest" order.
(F) Because learned judge heard the DGP is a gross error and mistake in law. Because accused does not have any locus standy and right to participate in a proceedings. Before charge framed or a before criminal case registeration. So, colourable power exercised to side track the breach of rule of law of supreme court which is a clear cut disobey and contempt of supreme court judgment as a rule of law.
(G) Learned judge court have to consider
Page 17 of 35
R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER
that the notice issued by court is as a cognizance has been taken yet. Hon'ble Court came under the pressure of political person is a clear cut threat to judicial system. And court of justice. Court came under influence of political persons powers. (H) Learned judge ought to have consider that in a present case against public servant and their disobey of the rule of court duty is a clear cut breach of duty and ACT so CRPC197cannot protect the accused.
(I) Because the learned judge ought to have considered that complaint filed by the petitioner is to protect the rule of court and process of law, accused does not have power to deny to register the FIR, it is mandatory in nature and character and police officer are duty bound to obey the rule of law.
(J) Because the learned judge erred not
to connect the accused as alleged in the
Page 18 of 35
R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER
complaint for breach of duty, deficiency in service under constitution of India rule of law.
(k) Because learned judge failed to consider that though accused are public servant yet they breach the rule of law, so without facing the trial, court cannot by pass and "drop" the notice without any cause and acquit the accused without trial. (L) Because the learned judge ought to have considered the Apex Court rule AIR 2014 SC187 will be directly applicable. (M) Because the learned judge ought to have considered the court function administrative as well as ministerly function with direction of supreme court rule.
(N) Because the learned judge ougt to have considered valid complaint and also unseen the other alternative prayer under CRPC 156(3) is a gross error on record, even collector order was not taken into Page 19 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER consideration is a non application of mind and to "file" the complaint, "drop" the notice without discussion is not a judgment in eye of law, it is a crystal clear "nonest".
(o) Because learned judge ought to have consider the CRPC 160, 161, 162 that no statement by police be signed by party it is a breach of law. Which cannot be basis to "file" the complaint.
(P) Because learned judge ought to have considered the misconduct, disobey of Police officer duty and act by breach of rule of law.
(Q) Because learned judge erred to consider that rule of law exists in this country. Rule of law is a basic feature of our constitution, it is a doctrine basic structure. Rule of law affirm supremacy of court, Judiciary supremacy, so to philosophy of Law and justice must be protected by judges, and judiciary. Page 20 of 35
R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER (R ) Because learned judge came under the pressure of a political persons and higher rank officer who design such defective system skillfully to breach the rule of law, under the wrong "Araji" "Application" system, instead of Registering FIR is dangerous to constitution, CRPC, 154 and also for the rule of the law. Such disobey cannot be tolerated by Judiciary. (S) Because the rule of law is the basis of evaluation of all decisions. The supreme quality of the rule of law is fairness and legal certainty. The principle of legality occupies a central plan in the rule of law. Every prerogative has to be the subject to the rule of law. So aggrieved person is able for removal either Arbitrary, Malafide, capricious or whimsical, the court can call anybody and will interfere with amenable power by the judicial process.
(T) Under our constitution sovereignty vests in the people. Every limb of the Page 21 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented. Public authority, and its officers are accountable for their behaviour; court is bound to protect and maintain the rule of law. If public officers abuses his offices either by an act of omission or commission and the consequence of that is an injury to an individual an action may be maintained as offence under IPC 166 (A). So in modern society no authority can arrogate it itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. When duty is performed capriciously or the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then responsibility will be fasten upon erring officials and to punish them. (13) The petitioner has no other equally efficious alternative remedy but to prefer this petition before this Hon'ble Court. (14) The petitioner craves leave of this Hon'ble court to add, amend, alter, rescind and/or modify any of the forgoing Page 22 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER paragraphs/grounds as and when found necessary.
(15) The petitioner has not filed any other petition in any other court of law including this Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India with regard to the subject matter of this petition. (16) In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner most humbly prays that :
A. Your Lordships, may be to admit and allow the present petition.
B. Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 10.2.14 passed by 3rd JMFC Court, Surat, in Misc. Criminal App. No. 74/2014, by quashing order dt :10/2/14 (Annexure"B"
and allow Annex "A" to continue as per law.
C. Your Lordships, may be pleased to
pass such other and further orders
Page 23 of 35
R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER
directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and expedient in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.
3. On the similar lines as aforesaid are the contents of the application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 74/14 lodged with Court of learned Judicial Magistrate.
4. Prior thereto the petitioner gave an application Annexure E to the Katargam police station, Surat against 25 persons seeking an action against them for the offences punishable under sections 33, 34, , 114, 120 A, 120 B, 386, 420, 466, 468, 471, 506(2) etc. The petitioner desired to register an FIR against the aforementioned persons. The allegations made in the said application were directed against Ravji Shambhu Radadia and his brother Chhaganbhai Shambu Radadia in respect of some parcels of land with which the petitioner was not directly connected. He, however, made vague and general allegations that the aforementioned two persons have put up illegal construction on few plots of land and had recovered crores of rupees from its Page 24 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER residents. It was not the case in the application that any of such persons had come forward to him with such complaints.
5. As it would appear from the impugned order the petitioner was summoned by the police for recording of his statement in connection with the said application on 26th November 2013 and he appeared in the police station on 27th November 2013 and stated in his statement that since he had already filed another case being 1/13, on the subject matter, he was not interested in prosecuting his application dated 17th December 2012, with the police. Accordingly the chapter was closed by the police. The petitioner suppressed such facts and instituted the Criminal Misc. Application No. 74/14 with learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat joining various authorities including constitutional authorities having nothing to do with the matter directly and at the same time excluded the aforementioned 25 persons. True that for the purpose of relief to register the FIR the presence of the proposed accused would not be necessary but the fact remains that he joined other authorities for Page 25 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER no reason whatsoever.
6. After considering the matter in detail, the learned Magistrate found that vague and general allegations were made in the application aforementioned dated 17th December 2012 without producing any document or witnesses in support thereof and that said application was not pressed as above. Learned judge was at pains to observe that despite instructing the petitioner to argue the matter on merits, irrelevant arguments, objecting to the respondents entitlement to defend the case through District Government Pleader (petitioner had joined them ), were made. Sarcastical submissions that the persons depending upon the salary from the government had come to the Court for defending the case through the District Government Pleader and that respondent no. 6 herein was a habitual offender etc thus, wasting the time of already overburdened court, were made.
7. The learned Judge also held in the impugned order that the petitioner was unable to justify the joinder of aforementioned dignitaries in the application. Of course Page 26 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER the law does not make any distinction between the ordinary citizens and holder of a constitutional position or any post in the Government, what is relevant is that none can be joined in a case without justifying such joinder. A bare perusal of application dated 17th December 2012 indicates lack of knowledge of the fact stated therein, with the petitioner inasmuch as averments are vague, general, bald and not supported by any witness or documentary evidence neither any witnesses were cited by the petitioner in his aforesaid Criminal Misc. Application.
8. What can be noticed from the averments made in the petition is that the facts stated therein have no head and tail. The petitioner has drafted an essay reminding the Court, the law and their duties. The petitioner also refers to Central list, State list, concurrent list I.e the subjects on which the Central or State or both of them are empowered to enact a law as enumerated in the Schedule 7 of the Constitution. It is not understood as to how those averments were necessary for the purpose of this petition.
Page 27 of 35
R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER
9. The petitioner has further made wild contumacious allegations against the judicial authority stating that the impugned order has been passed under the influence of the respondents particularly respondent no. 6 herein. As noticed above the learned Judicial Magistrate has analyzed the matter threadbare and has fully applied his mind to the facts of the case, answered all the issues raised before him and has also considered the fact that the application before him was not private complaint or an FIR and therefore, mere issuance of the notice to the respondents, in the proceedings would not amount to taking cognizance of the offence, and rightly so. The learned Judicial Magisterate in the operative part of the impugned order has reserved a liberty with the petitioner to move a private complaint if he is desirous of prosecuting the accused persons concerned. By no stretch of imagination such order can be said to have been influenced by the political personalities as was contended before the learned Judicial Magistrate.
10. The petitioner not only persisted with unnecessary Page 28 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER and irrelevant applications at exh. 13, 14, 15, and 16 as noticed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in its impugned order, but also sought bail and bond from them for no reasons and on imaginary accusations.
11. Initially the learned Magistrate, issued notices and thereafter by impugned order below exh. 1 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 74/2014 inter alia dropped the notices and closed the applications Exh. 13 to 16 by impugned order dated 10th February 2014. The aggrieved petitioner is therefore, before this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. The contentions are that the impugned order is non est being contrary to ratio laid down in below mentioned case :
1. Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Mumbai (2006)12 SCC 583
2. Inderajit Singh Grewal Vs State of Punjab and Anr. (2011) 12 SCC 588
3. B.P Singhal Vs Union of India and anr. Page 29 of 35
R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER
(2010)6 SCC 331
4, Inspector Prem Chand Vs, Govt. of NCT
of Delhi and Ors. (2007)4SCC 566
5. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad & Ors. AIR 2012 SC 1339
6. Ghaziabad Development Authority V. Balbir Singh AIR 2004 SC 2141
7. Jamal Uddin Ahmad, V. Abu Saleh Najmuddin and Anr. AIR 2003 SC 1917
8. In the matter of 'K' Judicial Officer (2001 (2) G.L.H 7.
9. Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P and Ors.
(2012) (2) G.L.H.1
8. Glanrock Estate Private Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 10 SCC96
9. Dayal Singh V, State of Uttranchal AIR 2012 SC 3046
10. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Maddula Ratnavalli and Ors. (2007) 6SCC81 Page 30 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER
13. That in absence of specific provisions allowing the withdrawal of notices or closure of applications under the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C"), such order could not have been passed and only recourse open to the Court below was either to record conviction, acquittal or discharge. It is also contended that authorities cited before the learned trial judge were not considered.
14. That there was contempt of the Hon'ble High Court since rule of law was not obeyed. That the petitioner had locus standi to participate in the proceeding. That the impugned order was passed under political pressure. That no protection as contemplated under section 197 of Cr.P.C was available to the respondents. That the Court below did not appreciate the application filed to protect the rule of law as also the process of law and the registration of the FIR could not have been denied and other similar grounds were urged before the trial court.
15. The learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Jani pointed out that no specific averments worth the name against the Page 31 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER respondents particularly nos. 3,4,5,6 and 7 were made and in absence thereof no cognizance was but only notices were issued and subsequently by impugned order such notices were withdrawn. He argued that since no case is made out, the trial court was within its power to withdraw the notices.
16. It was argued that in fact on finding lack of material to proceed under section 156(3) of Cr. P.C, notices have been rightly withdrawn and such an order doesn't require interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. It appears that though not empowered to deal with an application under section 154, it came to be instituted before the learned Magistrate. However, it also appears that the petitioner wanted to invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Though under that provision, learned Magistrate is empowered to direct registration of the FIR as also monitor the investigation in view of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P and Ors. (2008 (2) G.L.H. 269, it is Page 32 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER not as if that in all cases he is bound to exercise the power under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C irrespective of nature of averments and the substance in the application. It is the duty of the learned Magistrate to address himself as to whether the application refers to a cognizable offence and that it requires cognizance under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The notices were issued perhaps unmindful of the correct legal position by the learned Magistrate. In response to notices, respondents appeared through Public Prosecutor and on hearing the parties learned Magistrate deemed it appropriate to close proceedings ie he refused to exercise powers under section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order and rightly so inasmuch as, as can be noticed from the averments in the application, wild, baseless, bald, imaginary allegations were made therein. The applicant calls himself "public spirited"
citizen having personal interest as also in the subject matter of the application. On mere basis that respondent nos 3 to 7 are at the helm of affairs and thus on the presumption that they are responsible for general administration of their respective departments, they have Page 33 of 35 R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER also been arrayed as respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any specific allegations against the said respondents. Even against respondent nos, 1 and 2 superfluous and feeble allegations are made. Issuance of notice on such application is itself nonest and having realised the aforesaid aspect, the learned Magistrate was quite right in closing the applications.
18. None of the authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner deal with situation similar to one on hand and therefore, they are not helpful to the petitioner.
19. As discussed in greater details the petitioner's case did not have head and tail to stand. Irrelevant, bald, vague and general imaginary allegations have been made in the petition as well as in the proceedings before the lower court. Contumacious and irresponsible statements were made in the petition without any justification as if the Lower Court was under the influence of bureaucracy or political personalities. Page 34 of 35
R/SCR.A/951/2014 ORDER Considerable time of this Court as well as that of the Court below is vested in the frivolous litigation without bothering about the fact that Courts are overburdened and hard to find time to attend genuine litigations as also criminal cases where the innocent persons may be lingering in jails. Thus, the action of the petitioner in resorting to such frivoulous and irresponsible litigation needs to be curbed with heavy cost. Accordingly the cost quantified at Rs 1 lakh is imposed upon the petitioner.
20. In above view of the matter, the petition fails and is dismissed. The petitioner shall deposit cost of Rs one lakh with Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from the date of this order failing which it shall be recovered from him under Bombay Land Revenue Code.
(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) mary Page 35 of 35