Gujarat High Court
Nirali Dipenbhai Patel vs Bhartasinh Rathwa on 16 July, 2018
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: R.Subhash Reddy, Vipul M. Pancholi
C/MCA/1338/2017 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1338 of 2017
In CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8519 of 2017
==========================================================
NIRALI DIPENBHAI PATEL
Versus
BHARTASINH RATHWA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAD D BUCH(4000) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MRS. BHAVINI N. BUCH(5403) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 16/07/2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
1. This application is filed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as `Act of 1971') alleging that the respondents have intentionally and willfully violated the direction issued by this Court in the order dated 3.4.2017 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.8519 of 2017.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nirad D Buch for the applicant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Devnani for the Page 1 of 6 C/MCA/1338/2017 ORDER respondents.
3. It is submitted by learned advocate for the applicant that the FIR being C.R.No.I-44 of 2017 is filed with Rajkot Taluka police station against the applicant and two others for the offences punishable under Sections 365 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. The said FIR is filed on 14.3.2017. The applicant and other accused have filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.8519 of 2017 for quashing of the said FIR and proceedings arising therefrom. It is submitted that this Court passed an order on 3.4.2017 by which this Court has observed that the investigation may continue, however, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants on condition that the applicant shall extend full cooperation in the investigation. It is submitted that the copy of the said order was served to the concerned police station on 5.4.2017. In spite of service of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, on 27.4.2017 at 6.30 p.m., the respondent no.3 came at the place of the applicant. At that time, she was in the house of her neighbour and she was taken to the police station. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 called the respondent nos.1 and 2 and respondent nos.1 and 2 reached Nikol police station in the midnight. Thereafter, she was taken to Bopal and in the morning at 6.30 Page 2 of 6 C/MCA/1338/2017 ORDER p.m., she was permitted to leave the police station. Thus, the applicant was illegally detained by the respondents in spite of the order passed by this Court that no coercive steps shall be taken by the applicant. It is, therefore, alleged that the respondents have intentionally and willfully disobeyed the direction given by this Court and therefore proceedings under the Act of 1971 be initiated against the respondents.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Devnani submitted that this application is filed with a view to pressurize the police officers and therefore this Court may not entertain this application. It is submitted that initially the FIR came to be registered for the offences punishable under Section 365 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. However, Sections 376, 386, 363, 366, 406, 420,313, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code came to be added. It is pointed out by learned Assistant Government Pleader that before this Court passed an order on 3.4.2017, on 29.3.2017, Rajkot Taluka Police station gave yadi to Nikol police station within the jurisdiction of which the accused was residing. Since the yadi was given to Nikol police station prior to the date of the order passed by this Court, when the applicant was found at her residence, the officer of Nikol Page 3 of 6 C/MCA/1338/2017 ORDER police station, unaware about the order passed by this Court, had taken the applicant to the police station as the applicant was found at her residence. Thereafter, respondent no.3 called the respondent nos.1 and 2 and therefore respondent nos.1 and 2 immediately approached Nikol police station and carried out further inquiry. The applicant was asked about the whereabouts of Gayatriba (victim) in the original complaint and her children aged about 10 years and 8 years. The applicant informed the concerned police officers that she was taken to Bopal, however, on inquiry nothing was found and therefore the applicant was permitted to leave. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has specifically denied the allegation levelled by the applicant in the application about the illegal detention of the applicant. It is contended that this Court permitted to continue the investigation. However, direction is given not to take any coercive steps. It is submitted that no coercive steps are taken against the applicant and therefore the present application is misconceived. He, therefore, urged that this application be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it is revealed that after the registration of the FIR which was Page 4 of 6 C/MCA/1338/2017 ORDER initially filed under Sections 365 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, further provisions of Indian Penal Code are added. This Court passed an order on 3.4.2017 in the application filed by the applicant and others for quashing of the said FIR. This Court permitted the investigating officer to continue the investigation. However, it is further directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants on condition that they have to extend full cooperation in the investigation. The said order was passed on 3.4.2017. However, prior to passing of the said order, yadi to Nikol police station was given on 29.3.2017 by the Rajkot Taluka police station within the jurisdiction of which the accused was residing and on the basis of the said yadi, respondent no.3 when found the applicant at her residence, had taken her to Nikol police station and thereafter informed the respondent nos.1 and 2 about the said incident. The respondent nos.1 and 2 therefore went to Nikol police station and started inquiry and during the said inquiry, it was found that the victim namely Gayatriba and her two children are at Bopal. The applicant was taken to Bopal during the course of investigation. However, the victim and her children were not found at the said place and therefore the applicant was permitted to go to her residence. Thus, from the affidavit filed Page 5 of 6 C/MCA/1338/2017 ORDER by the respondent, it is clear that the applicant was not illegally detained as alleged by the applicant. The investigation is permitted by this Court in the order dated 3.4.2017 and the applicant is duty bound to cooperate in the said investigation. Thus, when the respondents have not taken any coercive steps, it cannot be said that the respondents have willfully and intentionally violated the direction issued by this Court in the order dated 3.4.2017.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that this is not fit case to proceed further under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, the proceedings are closed and this application is dismissed.
(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) SRILATHA Page 6 of 6