Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/122420/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1224 of 2009
==========================================
SUNITADEVI
BABULAL JHANGID - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
PP MAJMUDAR for Applicant(s) : 1,
MR MR
MENGDEY, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
None
for Respondent(s) : 3 - 4.
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date
: 30/06/2009
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
Mr.P.P.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner.
By
this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner seeks a direction against the respondent authorities to
register the complaint of the petitioner as a First Information
Report and investigate the same in a neutral manner.
In
response to the submissions made by the learned advocate for the
petitioners, Mr.M.R.Mengdey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Aleque Padamsee and others v. Union of
India and others,
(2007)6 SCC 171. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has
specifically dealt with the issue as to what course is to be adopted
if the police does not register the FIR. The Court held that,
Whenever any information is received by the police
about the alleged commission of offence which is a cognizable one
there is a duty to register the FIR. There can be no dispute on
that score. The only question is whether a writ can be issued to
the police authorities to register the same. The basic question is
as to what course is to be adopted if the police does not do it.
The Court, after referring to various decisions on the issue,
further held as follows :
The
correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials
ought to register an FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show
that a cognizable offence has been made out. In case the police
officials fails to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out
in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
The
Apex Court has referred to its earlier decision in the case of All
India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees’ Union (Registered)
v. Union of India, (2004)7
SCC 768, wherein it was specifically observed that a writ petition
in such cases is not to be entertained.
In
the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions
cited hereinabove, this Court is of the view that if the police
authorities are not registering his complaint, the course open to
the petitioner is to adopt the modalities contained in Section 190
read with Section 200 of the Code. Moreover, as held by the Supreme
Court in the case of All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Employees’ Union (Registered) v. Union of India (supra), a
writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained.
For
the foregoing reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain this
petition. The same is, accordingly, summarily rejected.
However,
it would be open for the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings
before the appropriate forum as laid down in the decision cited
hereinabove.
Direct
service is permitted.
[HARSHA
DEVANI, J.]
parmar*
Top