Mehulbhai Karshanbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 5893 Guj

                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




     R/SCR.A/6369/2016                            ORDER DATED: 11/08/2023

                                                                                 undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

           R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 6369 of 2016

==========================================================
                MEHULBHAI KARSHANBHAI CHANDRAVADIYA
                               Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR BHAVESH P TRIVEDI(2731) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR RR TRIVEDI(941) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                              Date : 11/08/2023

                               ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Piyush Trivedi for respondent no.4 and learned APP for respondent nos.1,2 and 3.

2. Present petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying for following reliefs :-

       "(A)     Admit and allow this petition.
       (B)      Issue appropriate writ order or direction to the

respondents to register / lodge FIR upon the complaint dated 05.04.2016 which is at Annexure - C. (C) Issue appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to consider the application in view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/6369/2016 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2023

undefined

of Lalitakumar v/s. Goverment of UP reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1.

(D) Grant such other and further relief as thought fit in the interest of justice."

3. In her utter fairness, learned advocate Ms. Shah submits that this Court may not issue Mandamus directing the concerned Police Station to register FIR, but may relegate the petitioner to approach concerned Police Station for agitating his grievance. She has further submitted that petitioner had filed written complaint before the concerned Police Station and also send to concerned SP, which is at Annexure C to the memo of the petition (Page no.16 to 19). Therefore, she submits that in view of provisions of Cr.P.C., concerned Police Station was required to look into the matter but since concerned Police Station did not pay heed to the complaint filed by the petitioner, it constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by way of present petition. Further, she submits that she limits her arguments to permit the petitioner to raise grievance before the concerned Police Station.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Piyush Trivedi for respondent no.4 submits that respondent no.4 has re-possessed vehicle from the petitioner after obtaining necessary order from the concerned Court and no illegality has been committed by respondent no.4 which could attract offence punishable under the provisions of IPC or any other offence for time being in force. Therefore, concerned Police Station has rightly denied to take cognizance to the written complaint.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/6369/2016 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2023

undefined

5. Learned APP for the respondent - State submits that concerned Police Station has issued notice to the petitioner for giving his statement but the present petitioner did not remain present. In that circumstances, concerned Police Stanton could not take necessary action in regard to written complaint filed by the petitioner. Upon such submissions, it was submitted to dismiss this petition.

6. Having noticed letter / notice issued by the concerned Police Station to the petitioner, learned advocate Ms. Shah for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner shall remain present before the concerned police station.

7. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, at this stage, it would be apposite to refer judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. Subramaniam v. S. Janki reported in 2020 (16) SCC 728. The Apex Court has observed thus-

"5.While it is not possible to accept the contention of the appellants on the question of locus standi, we are inclined to accept the contention that the High Court could not have directed the registration of an FIR with a direction to the police to investigate and file the final report in view of the judgment of this Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others in which it has been inter alia held as under:

"11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 of CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application (2008) 2 SCC 409 under

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/6369/2016 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2023

undefined

Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.

12. Thus in Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan this Court observed: (SCC p. 631, para 11) "11. The clear position therefore is that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police station as indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complainant because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter."

13. The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (JT vide para 17). We would further clarify that even if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order(s) as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3) CrPC.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/6369/2016 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2023

undefined

14.Section 156(3) states:"156. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned." The words "as abovementioned" obviously refer to Section 156(1), which contemplates investigation by the officer in charge of the police station.

15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII CrPC. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same.

16. The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 156(3) is an independent power and does not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of his report vide Section 173(8). Hence the Magistrate can order reopening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report, vide State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (SCC : AIR para 19).

17. In our opinion Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) CrPC, though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.

18. It is well settled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/6369/2016 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2023

undefined

control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary for its execution."

6. The said ratio has been followed in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others, in which it is observed.

"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.

3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/6369/2016 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2023

undefined

4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of the investigating (2016) 6 SCC 277 officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate (as investigation is the job of the police). Parties may produce any material they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court.

8. In these circumstances, we would allow the present appeal and set aside the direction of the High Court for registration of the FIR and investigation into the matter by the police. At the same time, our order would not be an impediment in the way of the first respondent filing documents and papers with the police pursuant to the complaint dated 18.09.2008 and the police on being satisfied that a criminal offence is made out would have liberty to register an FIR. It is also open to the first respondent to approach the court of the metropolitan magistrate if deemed appropriate and necessary. Equally, it will be open to the appellants and others to take steps to protect their interest."

8. In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v/s. Hemant Yashwant Dhage [(2016) 6 SCC 277], the Apex Court has observed that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. It is specifically held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/6369/2016 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2023

undefined

156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter. While approving aforesaid view, the Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the direction of the High Court for registration of FIR and has directed the respondent to approach the Court of Magistrate, if deem appropriate and necessary. Law of registration of FIR is well settled which has been reiterated in the recent judgment noted herein above.

9. It is on record that the petitioner has only approached the police authority by way of written complaint.

10. Under the circumstances and in light of observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this petition is rejected. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into merits of the dispute. Notice is discharged.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH