Gujarat High Court
Jignesh Dhirendrabhai Goswami vs State Of Gujarat & 2....Opponents on 14 November, 2014
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, R.P.Dholaria
C/WPPIL/262/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 262 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA Sd/-
=========================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be NO
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair NO
copy of the judgment ?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial NO
question of law as to the interpretation of the
constitution of India, 1950 or any order made
thereunder ?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil NO
Judge ?
===========================================================
JIGNESH DHIRENDRABHAI GOSWAMI....Applicant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Opponents
=========================================
Appearance :
MR KG PANDIT, ADVOCATE for the Applicant.
MR UTKARSH SHARMA, AGP for the Opponent Nos.1 & 2.
MR GM JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent No.3.
=========================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Page 1 of 7
C/WPPIL/262/2014 JUDGMENT
Date : 14/11/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI)
1. We have heard Mr. K.G. Pandit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
2. This petition has been filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation for issuance of a direction to the respondents to set up Fast Track Courts for speedy trial of rape cases in the State of Gujarat on the basis of guidelines rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nirbhaya incident.
3. Similar matter being Writ Petition (PIL) No.77 of 2014 came up before this Court in the case of Lok Rakshak Seva Samiti v. Union of India and other which was decided by this Court on 29.4.2014 wherein after considering the detailed figures of the rape cases pending in various Courts of State of Gujarat as well as the figures of rape cases pending in India, the Division Bench in exercise of power of superintendence has issued a direction to all the subordinate Courts of State of Gujarat to expedite the matters relating to offence against women, but did not grant the relief to the petitioner for creation of separate Court for dealing with the rape cases only as such Courts could only be created by the appropriate legislation. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, the Division Bench of this Court also noted that for expeditious disposal of rape cases as well as cases under Sections 363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code, the Standing Committee of this Court constituted a Committee of three Hon'ble Judges who have submitted interim Page 2 of 7 C/WPPIL/262/2014 JUDGMENT report and observations made by the Committee in the interim report as quoted in paragraph 9 of the said judgment is extracted below :-
"............To ensure that the cases relating to the offences against the women are Fast Tracked and taken up for hearing on priority basis, the Committee is also of the opinion that the concerned Courts may be directed to see to it that all those cases are ready for trial inclusive of committal of cases to the concerned Court if the cases are Sessions Triable; to frame the charge in all those cases and with respect to the cases which are pending due to non service of the summons and warrants either upon accused or the witnesses, the concerned Principal District and Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate may be directed to impress upon the concerned police authority / department to see that the summons / warrants inclusive of witness summons are served at the earliest by given them top priority and they shall have periodical monthly meeting with the concerned police authorities inclusive of Dy. Sp/ Commissionerate office and to effectively monitor the same.
Considering the number of cases of offences against the women pending in the subordinate Courts and number of Court at present available inclusive of lady Judicial Officers and to ensure that cases relating to the offences against the women are Fast Tracked and taken up for hearing on priority basis, the Committee is of the opinion that per 100 Page 3 of 7 C/WPPIL/262/2014 JUDGMENT Sessions triable cases, one Court of Sessions may be earmarked as Fast Track Court to exclusively deal with the cases of the offences against women and per 400 Magistrate triable cases, one Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class may be earmarked as Fast Track Court to exclusively deal with the cases of the offences against the women. Considering the aforesaid ratio and the pendency of the cases relating to the offences against the women and to see that cases / trials for the offences against the women are Fast Tracked, it is suggested that in all 43 Court of Sessions in various Districts (to deal with the Sessions triable cases) and 132 Judicial Magistrate First Class Courts (to deal with Magistrate triable case) are required to be earmarked as Fast Track Court to exclusively deal with the cases of the offences against the women..........."
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police v. Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna, 2014 (2) GLH 487 has issued various guidelines in paragraphs 9 & 10 of the judgment which is reproduced as under :-
"9. On considering the same, we have accepted the suggestion offered by the learned counsel who appeared before us and hence exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, we are pleased to issue interim directions in the form of mandamus to all the police station in charge in the entire country to follow the direction of this Court which are as follows :-Page 4 of 7
C/WPPIL/262/2014 JUDGMENT
(i) Upon receipt of information relating to the
commission of offence of rape, the Investigating Officer shall make immediate steps to take the victim to any Metropolitan/preferably Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. A copy of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. should be handed over to the Investigating Officer immediately with a specific direction that the contents of such statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. should not be disclosed to any person till charge sheet/report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is filed.
(ii) The Investigating Officer shall as far as possible take the victim to the nearest Lady Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate.
(iii) The Investigating Officer shall record specifically the date and the time at which he learnt about the commission of the offence of rape and the date and time at which he took the victim to the Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate as aforesaid.
(iv) If there is any delay exceeding 24 hours in taking the victim to the Magistrate, the Investigating Officer should record the reasons for the same in the case diary and hand over a copy of the same to the Magistrate.
(v) Medical Examination of the victim: Section
Page 5 of 7
C/WPPIL/262/2014 JUDGMENT
164 A Cr.P.C. inserted by Act 25 of 2005 in Cr.P.C.
imposes an obligation on the part of Investigating Officer to get the victim of the rape immediately medically examined. A copy of the report of such medical examination should be immediately handed over to the Magistrate who records the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
10. A copy of this order thus be circulated to all the Director Generals of Police of all the States / Commissioner of Police in Metropolitan cities / Commissioner of Police of Union Territories who are then directed to send a copy of this order to all the police stations in charge in their States/Union Territories for its compliance in cases which are registered on or after the receipt of a copy of these directions. Necessary instructions by the DGPs / Commissioners of Police be also issued to all the police station in charge by the DGPs / Commissioner of Police incorporating the directions issued by us and recorded hereinbefore."
5. Since the above referred decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been circulated all over India to the concerned authorities as mentioned above in paragraph 10 of the judgment and report has been called for by the Hon'ble Apex Court within a period of four weeks and since the Hon'ble Apex Court is in seisin of the matter, we do not think it proper to go any further in the matter as the matter is still subjudice before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
6. In this view of the matter, since appropriate action has Page 6 of 7 C/WPPIL/262/2014 JUDGMENT been taken in the State of Gujarat by this Court and so far as other directions and guidelines are concerned, it is yet to be finally decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, we dispose of this Public Interest Litigation at this stage. Notice is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.) Sd/-
(R.P.DHOLARIA, J.) Savariya Page 7 of 7