Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/4145/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 4145 of 2010
=============================================
HARESH
RAVJIBHAI BHALIYA - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance
:
MRMPSHAH for Applicant(s) :
1,MS. KRUTI M SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR SHIVANG SHUKLA ADDL.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=============================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 28/04/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
Criminal Misc. Application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash and set aside the impugned F.I.R.
being C.R. No.I-134/2009 registered at Jetpur City Police Station,
District: Rajkot Rural for the offences u/s. 506, 384 and 511 of
Indian Penal Code and the subsequent proceedings i.e. charge sheet
and Criminal Case No.53/2010.
2. The
complainant who is the owner of a retail shop named as ‘Rupali Season
Store’, situated near Central Bank Station Road, Jetpur, is having
license to sell firecrackers during Diwali season. The present
applicant, on 30th September, 2009 around 12:00 p.m. came
to the shop of the complainant and started doing video-shooting and
projected himself that he had come from Mamlatdar officer and
inquired about why firecrackers were kept illegally in the shop. On
telephoning the office of Mamlatdar, the complainant was informed
that no such person from Mamlatdar Office was deployed to the shop of
the complainant and, therefore, no person was permitted to carry
video-shooting of the shop and belongings in the shop of the
complainant. Not only that but the applicant threatened the shop
owner of the dire consequences and to close down his business. The
said incident was witnessed by neighbouring shop owners and other
sellers of firecrackers and thereafter, a written application against
the applicant was given to the Mamlatdar. Upon investigation, charge
sheet came to be filed on 4.1.2010 for the offences as above and the
applicant is shown as accused in the charge sheet No.001/2010.
3. Learned
advocate for the applicant submits that complainant-a shop owner and
other neighboring shop owners were selling firecrackers during season
of Diwali and had no license and, therefore, the aplicant being a
freelance journalist was performing his duty to report such illegal
activities of the complainant and at no point of time the applicant
demanded any amount. It is the case of the applicant that the
applicant tried to expose illegal activities of the shop owners and
some personnels from the Mamlatdar office and other such Government
offices, the applicant is being victimised. Learned advocate for the
applicant further submits that if the powers under Section 482 of the
code is not exercised, applicant who is performing his duty as a
journalist will be subjected to undue agony of the trial
particularly, when no ingredients of offences are disclosed. In
addition to above, it is submitted that in identical case, this Court
quashed and set aside similar F.I.R. and the said order is produced
at Annexure ‘C’ to this petition and is relied on by learned advocate
for the applicant.
4. Having
heard learned advocates appearing for the parties, I am of the
opinion that allegations against the applicant are to the extent that
the applicant has impersonated himself as an employee of the
Mamlatdar Officer, Jetpur and projected himself as a Government
employee. Not only that but further allegations are to the extent
that the amount demanded by the applicant is not paid, he would take
appropriate action against the shop owners and will close down their
business. This incident was witnessed by the neighbouring shop
owners and, therefore, they filed a representation before the office
of the Mamlatdar. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet
is filed and prima facie a case is made out for the offence under
Sections 384, 506 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. If the
definition of the above offences is seen, the allegations levelled in
this complaint attract the ingredients of the sections. Not only
that the applicant who has done video-shooting, impersonated and
projected himself as an Government employee of Mamlatdar Officer and
further threatened the shop owners for taking serious action for
selling firecrackers on foot path without license and to close down
their business cannot be said to be part of his duty.
5. Be
that as it may be. Charges found in the police report under Section
173(2) of the Code, against the applicant are of such a nature which
do not befit a noble profession like journalism, this Court is not
oblivious of the fact that right to freedom guaranteed to the citizen
of India is subjected to reasonable restrictions and in the guise of
freedom of speech, expression etc., the freedom and liberty given to
a reporter/journalist, cannot be misused.
6. In
view of the above, I am not inclined to entertain this application.
The prayers made in this application cannot be granted. Criminal
Misc. Application is rejected.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
//smita//
Top