Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1798/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1798 of 2010
=========================================================
APURVA
DINESHBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ND NANAVATI SR.ADVOCATE WITH MR YASH N NANAVATY
for
Applicant(s)
MR KARTIK PANDYA ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 19/10/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Petitioner
is aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2010 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara below Exh.1 in Criminal Misc.
Application No.899 of 2010.
2. Shortly
stated the facts are as under :
2.1 Petitioner
had initially approached the concerned police authority by filing
complaint in writing dated 04.08.2010 and made allegations of
commission of offence punishable under Sections 403, 406, 467, 468,
471, 472, 473, 474, 475 read with Section 114 of the IPC against the
persons named in the said complaint.
2.2 Since
no cognizance of the said written complaint was taken, petitioner
moved Criminal Misc. Application No.899 of 2010 dated 25.08.2010
before the learned Magistrate and prayed that his written complaint
dated 04.08.2010 filed before the Makarpura Police Station be
directed to be registered as FIR and procedure thereupon be
undertaken.
= Learned
Magistrate rejected this application by his impugned order observing
inter alia that when no complaint under Section 190 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure disclosing commission of cognizance of offence has
been filed before him, he does not have any power to accept the
request of the petitioner for directing registration of FIR under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.. Learned Magistrate was also opinion that
when no such complaint is before him, no steps as provided under
Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. are required to be taken. In the
conclusion, he observed that the entire attempt is to by-pass the
inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and to insist that
investigation be undertaken by the police under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.P.C..
Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that along with the said
Criminal Misc. Application No.899 of 2010, the petitioner had also
annexed the complaint dated 04.08.2010 made to the concerned Police
Station. Learned Magistrate was, therefore, not right in observing
that no complaint is before him upon which appropriate orders can be
passed. Though I am not largely in agreement with the above
contention of the petitioner for two counts, I am of the opinion that
it would be appropriate that the petitioner files fresh complaint in
writing before the learned Magistrate. Firstly, only prayer made in
the Criminal Misc. Application No.899 of 2010 was for registration of
FIR under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., no option was available
under Cr.P.C. was left open to the learned Magistrate. Secondly, the
Criminal Misc. Application did not contain full details of the
allegations of the petitioner and he merely relied upon the complaint
dated 04.08.2010 made to the Makarpura Police Station to elaborate
the allegations against the persons named therein.
Under
the circumstances, this petition is disposed of permitting the
petitioner to file fresh written complaint before the learned
Magistrate narrating all the allegations against the proposed
accused. If such complaint is filed, learned Magistrate shall take
such steps as may be found necessary in accordance with law. In other
words, he may either direct police investigation under Section
156(3) of the Cr.P.C. or if so found necessary at his discretion hold
Court inquiry in terms of provisions contained in Section 200 – 202
of the Cr.P.C. This shall be done unmindful of the observations made
in the impugned order since even otherwise, I am of the opinion that
Criminal Misc. Application No.899 of 2010 itself could have been
treated as written complaint by the learned Magistrate. However, only
with a view to ensure that one composite appropriate complaint is
filed before the learned Magistrate, the petitioner is directed to
file fresh complaint.
With
the above observations and direction, the petition is disposed of
accordingly.
(
AKIL KURESHI, J. )
kailash
Top