Gujarat High Court
Prabhaben Muljibhai Ranpariya vs State Of Gujarat on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13511/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 13511 of 2024
==========================================================
PRABHABEN MULJIBHAI RANPARIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRASHANTKUMAR R SHARMA(8591) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MANAN MAHETA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 04/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat.
[1.0] By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"), the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside or quash the order dated 26.07.2024 passed in the Copy (District Record Branch) Register No.1206 of 2024 filed in Sessions Case No.98/2018 before Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamnagar;
(B) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any direction to the Hon'ble Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamnagar to provide the certified copies of the Roznama as requested by the petitioner herein;"
[2.0] The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the mother Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:30:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13511/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined of accused namely Jayesh Patel, who is absconder and against whom investigation is pending and charge-sheet is yet to be filed, in connection with FIR being I-CR No.115/2018 which culminated into Sessions Case No.91/2021, the trial of which has begun for all other accused except Jayesh Patel as he is imprisoned in Belmarsh Prison, London, UK and facing extradition proceedings initiated by the Union of India. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an application for obtaining the certified copies of the Roznama in Sessions Case No.91/2021 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar on 29.06.2024 under Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993. The said application filed by the present petitioner on behalf of her son namely Jayesh Patel @ Jaysukh Ranpariya came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar vide the impugned order.
[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. P.R. Sharma appearing for the petitioner has submitted that to get the information is the right of the petitioner as petitioner is the mother of accused and she is entitled to get the certified copy of rojkam for the purpose of submitting the same before the higher forum and report was submitted as per Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 and she has relied on the order dated 04.03.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No.1966-67 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No.5840 of 2015 in the matter between Chief Information Commissioner vs. High Court of Gujarat & Anr. wherein it has been observed that, "insofar as furnishing of certified copies to third parties, the Rules framed by the High Courts stipulate that the certified copies of documents / orders or judgments or copies of proceedings would be furnished to the third parties only on the orders passed Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:30:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13511/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined by the court or the Registrar, on being satisfied about the reasonable cause and bona fide of the reasons seeking the information / certified copies of the documents". Hence, he has requested to allow the present petition.
[4.0] Learned APP has vehemently opposed the present petition by submitting that without there being any locus the petitioner has filed the present petition. Merely filing of affidavit is not enough and she has applied for getting the certified copy of rojkam to present before the higher forum. If the higher forum is in need or require copy of such proceeding then the Court may pass appropriate order upon the request of the petitioner and Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 is not applicable to the concerned Court and certified copies pertaining to Sessions Case No.98/2018 is not provided. The impugned order is just legal and proper and no interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powers under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the CrPC (section 528 of the BNSS).
[5.0] At the outset, it is worth to mention that present petition is not filed by the accused or the party to the proceedings of Sessions Case No.98/2018 but present petitioner is a third party. By filing affidavit she has sought for copy of the rojkam as accused wants to submit the same in extradition proceeding, which is not initiated at the instance of any order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned advocate for the petitioner has failed to give satisfactory reply to the query raised by this Court as to how the said certified copy is required for bonafide requirement and which fundamental right of the petitioner is violated and Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:30:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13511/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined what illegality has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, rather than replying to the said queries, learned advocate for the petitioner remained silent and requested to pass appropriate order.
[6.0] In view of the above, present petitioner is neither a party nor connected with the alleged proceeding of extradition and so far as copy of rojkam is concerned, persuing Annexure-C at page 17 of the compliation of petition, it clearly transpires that case status downloaded from e-court website and on CIS, details of case progress is mentioned and said rojkam starts from 24.08.2018 to 27.09.2024. Hence, if the petitioner wants to know about the progress of Sessions Case No.98/2018, she may go through the website and download the case status as available on the website. Further, as the accused Jayesh Patel i.e. son of petitioner is not arrested till date, no charge-sheet is filed qua the accused Jayesh Patel and hence, yet the trial is to commence against the accused. Hence, question does not arise to prepare any rojkam or to provide any copy of rojkam. Hence, present demand is misconceived and no any fundamental right of the petitioner is violated as the petitioner is a third party and accused for whom the petitioner is seeking certified copy of rojkam is already absconding and against whom trial is yet to begun before the learned Sessions Judge.
[7.0] So far as exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is concerned, as discussed, no error is committed by the learned Sessions Judge in refusing the request to provide copy Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:30:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13511/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined of rojkam to the petitioner. Even, Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 do not provide any assistance to the learned advocate for the petitioner more particularly in light of the fact that the proceedings of which certified copy is sought for, is of District Judiciary and criminal proceedings of District Judiciary are governed by Criminal Manual and civil proceedings are governed by Civil Manual. There is also a provision to provide copy of certified documents to the third party if he files an affidavit. Rule 377 of the Criminal Manual provides that, parties to any proceeding may, on application on the prescribed Court fee made to the Court having the custody of the record, obtain certified copies of any judgment, order, deposition, memorandum of evidence or any other document filed in the said proceedings. Herein, present petitioner is a third party and she has filed the said application supported by the affidavit. Even, Rule 377 of the Criminal Manual is pari materia provision to Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules. Even, discretion is given to the Presiding Officer vide Rule 504(10) of the Civil Manual which provides that in the case of a roznama, the portion of copy of which is given at the discretion of the Presiding Judge must include all the entries of a particular date or dates, accompanied with the heading and provision of Civil Manual is procedural aspect and applies in criminal matters also and same is also Chapter of Criminal Manual qua providing copies and record and custody and Rule 367(1) of the Criminal Manual provides that, subject to the provisions in this chapter, the rules in regard to the preservation and destruction of records prescribed in the Civil Manual shall apply mutatis mutandis to the criminal courts. Hence, the order dated Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:30:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13511/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined 04.03.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No.1966-67 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No.5840 of 2015 in the matter between Chief Information Commissioner vs. High Court of Gujarat & Anr. obtained through RTI application would not would not render any assistence to the petitioner.
[8.0] In view of above, learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. Hence, question does not arise to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are very much limited as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhe Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423. Herein, there is no any ground found to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error apparent on the face of the record or nothing emerges from the record. The learned Sessions Judge has not committed any palpable, manifest or substantial error in refusing the request of the petitioner. Even, the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution are very much limited under the supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At this stage it is apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel reported in (2020) 4 SCC 181, wherein in paragraph 77 it is held that High Court does not act as a Court of first appeal while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 and to re-appreciate, re-weight evidence or fact except error apparent face on the record or perversity in findings.
Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:30:22 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13511/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined [9.0] Further, the petitioner is aware of what type of proceedings are pending against the accused Jayesh Patel and till date, no any trial proceeding started and hence, question does not arise to pass any order to provide the rojkam of Sessions Case No.98/2018 and accused Jayesh Patel and/or the petitioner can obtain whatever rojkam is available on the e-court website, which is already received by the petitioner.
[10.0] Another aspect which is required to be considered is as regards invoking powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (section 528 of the BNSS). Learned advocate for the petitioner has failed to point out that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge be termed as abuse of the power, in absence of any evidence in support of abuse of process of Court or otherwise. Even otherwise, to provide the copy of rojkam or certified copy of rojkam and that too, to a third party, is nothing but only administrative function and administrative function also does not fall in the purview of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS). In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Export Promotion Council vs. Usha Anand & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 620, wherein it has been held that administration function / action shall be challenged through a writ petition, not by invoking the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS). Even for invoking powers of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner shall have to show that grave injustice has been done to a party and reason assigned by the learned trial Court is perverse. Herein, petitioner has failed to show as to how the learned Sessions Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:30:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13511/2024 ORDER DATED: 04/08/2025 undefined Judge has committed an error or injustice to the accused. To provide copy of rojkam to the party to the proceeding or not is under the domain and discretionary powers of the concerned learned Presiding Judge and party to the proceeding is also under the domain of concerned Court. Herein, petitioner is a third party and hence, question does not arise to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the CrPC (section 528 of the BNSS).
[11.0] In wake of aforesaid discussion, no any ground is found or case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. Rule is hereby discharged.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Aug 06 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 06 23:30:22 IST 2025