Gujarat High Court
Mikeshbhai Manubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & on 25 February, 2016
Author: Sonia Gokani
Bench: Sonia Gokani
R/SCR.A/1019/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION - TO LODGE
FIR/COMPLAINT) NO. 1019 of 2016
================================================================
MIKESHBHAI MANUBHAI PATEL....petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR, ADVOCATE for the petitioner(s) No. 1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date : 25/02/2016
ORAL ORDER
1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:-
"19.(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus nor any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing respondent No.2 to register complaint/representation of the petitioner dated 25.02.2012 (at Annexure-A hereto) as F.I.R. and to investigate the same in a fair manner; (B) During pendency and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to register complaint/representation of the petitioner dated 25.02.2012 (at Annexure-A hereto) as F.I.R. and to investigate the same in a fair manner; (C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;"
2.0 Learned advocate Mr.P.P.Majmudar submits that it is not the case of the petitioner that the document which is alleged to have been forged has been forged afterwards and the same was produced before the Court. Therefore, it would empower Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:56:36 IST 2016 R/SCR.A/1019/2016 ORDER to the police registering the complaint as cognizable case is made out. He further urges that the petitioner is able to make out revelation of cognizable offence. As such, he has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Lalita Kumari v/s. Government of U.P., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. It would be beneficial to reproduce relevant paragraph 120 of the said decision, which reads as under:-
"120. In view of the aforesaid discussion we hold:
120.1 The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such situation.
120.2 If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3 If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such clousure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4 The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
120.5 The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
120.6 As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:56:36 IST 2016 R/SCR.A/1019/2016 ORDER
(d)Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/latches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7 While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
120.8 Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Dairy is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above".
3.0 Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar has agreed that the civil suit is still pending and the trial court would not have any cause to lodge the complaint, if eventually the document is found to be forged. However, such vetting may not be necessary in given circumstances.
4.0 Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.J.K.Shah has urged that in the past, a statement was recorded of the present petitioner by the Circle Police Inspector, Karjan Circle, wherein, he agreed that in a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.888 of 2011, he has succeeded and the matter is pending for final adjudication, however, injunction order has resulted in favour of the petitioner against which the other side has preferred an application, but the trial court was not inclined to pursue the application.
5.0 Bearing in mind the fact that for the document averred to Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:56:36 IST 2016 R/SCR.A/1019/2016 ORDER have been produced in a pending civil litigation, the concerned Court has ample power to lodge the FIR or to direct the lodgment of the FIR, if otherwise it finds that the document pressed into service for the purpose of adjudication by other side, is a forged document. On having once prima facie found that such document is a forged one, at an appropriate time, necessary direction could be issued by the concerned civil court, where the suit is pending. At this stage to direct the Investigating Officer for lodgment of the complaint may not be necessary in the wake of this aspect. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise the issue at an appropriate time before the concerned court.
6.0 For the foregoing reasons and direction, the present petition stands disposed of.
(MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) siddharth Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Wed Mar 02 00:56:36 IST 2016