Gujarat High Court
Dhruti W/O Jaysukhbhai Ranpariya vs State Of Gujarat on 14 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 2338 of 2025
==========================================================
DHRUTI W/O JAYSUKHBHAI RANPARIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PRASHANTKUMAR R SHARMA(8591) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 14/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed seeking the following prayers:
"A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside Order dated 11.10.2024 passed under Exh.8 in Criminal Case No.3092/2021 annexed at ANNEXURE P along with Charge Sheet No. 2493 of 2020 dated 11.12.2020 and further to direct the Ld. Trial Court being 5th Addl. Sr. Civil Jude & ACJM, Jamnagar to direct the concerned police officers to further investigate / reinvestigate the offence being FIR No. 11202008202314 dated 01.11.2020 registered with Jamnagar Police Station City A Division for the offence u/s 504 and 506(2) of the IPC with respect to the new evidentiary documents provided by the applicant herein at ANNEXURE O Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:28:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined B. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present application/petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the trial proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3092/2021 tried before the Hon'ble 5th Addl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Jamnagar C. Ad-interim relief in terms of Prayer B may be granted D. Such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be granted."
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Prashantkumar R. Sharma for the petitioner and learned APP, Ms. Shruti Pathak for the respondent - State.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Sharma for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.17480 of 2023, the application is preferred under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the trial Court vide Exh.8 in Criminal Case No.3092 of 2021. He has submitted that the trial Court has not properly considered the application and has decided the said application in a mechanical manner. He has further submitted that the trial Court has not properly considered the fact that the accused is a family Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:28:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined relative of current Member of Parliament of Jamnagar, who is a close associate of Mr. Parimal Nathwani (Vice President of Reliance Industries Limited and also Member of Parliament). He further submits the fact that the accused is a family relative of current M.P. of Jamnagar, which is confirmed from the statement of Mr. Vishal Madam and he has submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the accused person has two brothers viz. Anand Madam and Jay Madam and all three of them having their tender contracts with Reliance Industries and same was given to them upon the recommendation of Mr. Parimal Nathwani. 3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner had produced various news articles relating to the Reliance Industries to the Police Officials and have informed that Mr. Parimal Nathwani is the mastermind behind the entire offence as the petitioner was threatened to issue newspaper publication against the Reliance Industries Pvt. Ltd. He has further submitted that attackers were sent at the home of the petitioner. He further submits that considering various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Court can direct re-investigation or de novo investigation by considering material available on the record, which is not done by the trial Court. He has submitted that this Court has ample power to grant re-investigation or Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:28:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined further investigation. He has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Anant Thanur Karmuse Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. rendered in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2023 as well as Devendra Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2022 INSC 1071 and has submitted that since the Police Officials have repeatedly failed to take any action against any person named by the complainant, therefore, further investigation or de novo investigation is required and in the interest of justice as well as for considering the aspect of fair trial, he prayed to allow the present petition.
4. Per contra, learned APP Ms. Shruti Pathak has strongly opposed the submissions made at the bar on behalf of the petitioner and has referred to the relevant portion from the judgment of trial Court and submitted that the trial Court has dealt with all the aspects in its judgment and the application which is filed under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. is rejected. She has further submitted, by referring to the earlier order passed by the Coordinate Bench in Criminal Misc. Application No.17480 of 2023 dated 23/10/23, that on the same facts as that of the present case, earlier also petition is filed which was considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and after considering the same, the Court was not inclined to grant any relief and the petition Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:28:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined came to be disposed of, however, liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the trial Court for further investigation with necessary material. She submits that considering that the petitioner is filing one after another litigation before this Court, which should be considered as abuse of process of law and the same is required to be dealt with accordingly by dismissing this petition
5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. The provisions of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., reads as under:
"Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.:
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer-in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)."
5.1 It is not in dispute that the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court on earlier occasion by praying for almost Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:28:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined identical relief as prayed in the present petition and this Court has given specific observation while considering all the material available on the record and thereafter, disposed of the petition by observing that no case is made out for interference of the Court. The relevant portion for consideration of the order dated 23.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.17480 of 2023, para 1, 9 to 15 are reproduced herein-below:
"1. The present petition under Article 226 is filed by the petitioner praying, interalia, as under:-
"A This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the Chargesheet No.2493 of 2020 dated 11.12.2020 and further direct the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar to direct the concerned police officers to reinvestigate the entire case related to FIR No.11202008202314 dated 01.11.2020 registered with Jamnagar Police Station City A Division for the offense U/S 504 and 506(2) of the IPC or in alternative direct the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar to direct the concerned police officers to further investigate the entire case related to FIR No..11202008202314 dated 01.11.2020 and cc No.3092/21."
9. The relief prayed for directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate to order re-investigation cannot be granted in view of decision of Apex Court in case of Chandra Babu @ Mosess. State Through Inspector of Police and others, reported in, 2015 (8) SCC 774 in para-21 and 22 as under:-
"21. In the said case, the question arose, whether the Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:28:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined Magistrate can direct for reinvestigation. The Court, while dealing with the said issue, has ruled that (Vinay Tyagi case, SCC p.791, para 43):-
"43. At this stage, we may also state another well-settled canon of the criminal jurisprudence that the superior courts have the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or even Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct "further investigation", "fresh" or "de novo" and even "reinvestigation". "Fresh", "de novo" and "reinvestigation" are synonymous expressions and their result in law would be the same. The superior courts are even vested with the power of transferring investigation from one agency to another, provided the ends of justice so demand such action. Of course, it is also a settled principle that this power has to be exercised by the superior courts very sparingly and with great circumspection."
And again: (SCC p. 794, para 51) "51. ...Whether the Magistrate should direct "further investigation" or not is again a matter which will depend upon the facts of a given case. The learned Magistrate or the higher court of competent jurisdiction would direct "further investigation" or "reinvestigation" as the case may be, on the facts of a given case. Where the Magistrate can only direct further investigation, the courts of higher jurisdiction can direct further, reinvestigation or even investigation de novo depending on the facts of a given case. It will be the specific order of the court that would determine the nature of investigation."
22. We respectfully concur with the said view. As we have already indicated, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has basically directed for further investigation. The said part of the Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:28:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined order cannot be found fault with, but an eloquent one, he could not have directed another investigating agency to investigate as that would not be within the sphere of further investigation and, in any case, he does not have the jurisdiction to direct reinvestigation by another agency. Therefore, that part of the order deserves to be lancinated and accordingly it is directed that the investigating agency that had investigated shall carry on the further investigation and such investigation shall be supervised by the concerned Superintendent of Police. After the further investigation, the report shall be submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who shall deal with the same in accordance with law. We may hasten to add that we have not expressed any opinion relating to any of the factual aspects of the case."
10. The facts of the case revolves around the incident which took place on 27.09.2020 for which complaint was filed on 01.11.2020 being C.R.No.11202008202314 of 2020 before City 'A"
Division Police Station, Jamnagar. The incident is of the accused named in the FIR arrived at the residence of the petitioner when she was present with her sister and accused banged on the closed door of the house and hurled abuses. Her statement was recorded on same day. Again on 04.11.2020 statement was recorded especially for CCTV footage. On 04.11.2020 statement of sister of the petitioner was recorded. She refers to issuance of threats. Statements of two witnesses who are independent and residents of vicinity were recorded. The accused was arrested and charge-sheet is filed on 11.12.2020.Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:28:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined
11. Learned advocate has prayed before the Court that the directions be given relegating the petitioner to the police agency or the trial Court. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner is unable to make out a ground for any interference at this stage as it is clearly coming out on record that the petitioner has not raised any of these contentions either before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction where the charge-sheet has already been filed nor has he placed anything on record to indicate that the petitioner has brought this issue before the concerned Investigating Agency. The petition is entirely aimed at witch- hunting a person, according to the petitioner, who is responsible for the accused person coming to the door of the petitioner and issuing threats. However, it is submitted that who is behind this has not been investigated. The charge-sheet filed indicates that it was the accused himself who had approached the residence of the petitioner and had issued the threats and once the statements of witnesses have been recorded, there does not appear anything on record that any other person is behind the accused.
12. The Court has also perused the statement of witnesses in the form of complainant herself, her sister as well as two independent witnesses, who are the neighbours. From their evidence also, nothing is coming out as to the petitioner has made any allegations about any person being behind the accused who is now charge-sheeted.
13. The trial Court is not powerless when it comes to circumstance to order further investigation if the material comes on record of the trial Court. In given facts, the trial Court may Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:28:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined do so even after filing of the 'final report'. In the instant case, there is nothing on record that the petitioner has indicated any fact which has remained un-investigated except for the fact that which article published by the petitioner has irked the accused and relation of the accused with the member of Parliament and other influential persons. This in itself will not be sufficient to order re-investigation of the entire case. Various pronouncements of the Apex Court do refer to the powers of the constitutional Court to order 're-investigation' to instill the confidence in the investigation. However, such powers are also to be used with circumspection where the offense involved is of serious nature. The facts of the present case do not go beyond banging on the door of the residence of the petitioner and then hurling abuses. These facts will definitely not required the Court to interfere.
14. However, it is specifically observed at the request of learned advocate that it is still open for the petitioner to approach the Court concerned or the investigating agency with any fact which according to the petitioner is relevant which shall be dealt with by the Court concerned and the investigating agency in accordance with law. If need be petitioner may even draw attention of the superior police officer in this regard.
15. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for interference at this stage. Hence, the petition stands disposed of."
5.2 In view of the above mentioned background, the trial Court has dealt with the material available on the record Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:28:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined and while disposing the Criminal Misc. Application by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the liberty came to be granted to approach the trial Court by filing appropriate proceedings for further investigation. The trial Court dealt with the contentions raised at the bar and has specifically found in paragraph 5 by giving detailed discussion about the submissions made at the bar. The Court has specifically found that the FIR has been lodged against the accused - Dharmin Madam by the petitioner under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused person on 27.09.2020, at about 8 p.m., came to the house of the petitioner and knocked the door of the house and when, he was asked who is he?, he answered, Dharmin Madam and then, he abused and threatened the petitioner to stop publishing the articles in newspaper, otherwise, he will kill the father-in-law of the petitioner. The Court has also considered the aspect that the incident has taken place on 27.09.2020 and the FIR is lodged on 01.11.2020. It is also stated by the petitioner before the trial Court that the Police did not registered the FIR and the entire FIR is not registered as per the version given by the petitioner and the FIR is lodged with modified version. However, the Court has found that if that is the situation, then, why the complainant who is a journalist signed the said FIR. Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:28:42 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined The Court has also observed that the allegations with regard to the publication of news articles which are the same news articles, which are considered by this Hon'ble Court while deciding the earlier application i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No.17480 of 2023. The Court has considered that no new material or evidence has been produced. The Court has considered all these aspects as well as the conduct of the petitioner, whereby, though the FIR is read by the petitioner and thereafter signed, she has not raised any objection at that point of time. 5.3 Moreover, considering the fact that this Court has already decided all the contentions raised in the present petition vide order dated 23.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.17480 of 2023 and thereafter, there is no material available before the trial Court nor before this Court. Therefore, in absence of such material, merely petitioner is repeatedly approaching this Court by challenging the same thing, which is to be considered as abuse of process of law as the judicial time is wasted in deciding such litigation without any supporting material. In any case, there is no quarrel about the ratio of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner but the facts of each case are to be decided on its own merits and considering the scope of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that neither the trial Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:28:42 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2338/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2025 undefined Court has committed any error nor the prayers sought in the present petition can be granted, as no case is made out on merits of the matter.
5.4 This Court is of the opinion that the person who is filing repeated petition for the same subject matter, with some minor modification, is required to be saddled with heavy cost, however, this Court refrains from doing so by observing that the petitioner should be more cautious in future while filing such repeated petitions.
6. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present petition lacks merit as no case is made out to exercise powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the petition is required to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) *S. Barot* Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by SLOCK BAROT(HC01781) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Feb 20 21:28:42 IST 2025