Gujarat High Court
Jadeja Jindusinh Sheevsinh vs State Of Gujarat on 5 December, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/15651/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION - TO LODGE
FIR/COMPLAINT) NO. 15651 of 2023
==========================================================
JADEJA JINDUSINH SHEEVSINH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR J A MODI(10961) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. R. K. RAJPUT(6988) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MS MH BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 05/12/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner prays for
following relief:-
"8(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the
respondent police authority to lodge/register an FIR
against respondents No.2 and all other concern persons
with respect to application dated 06.09.2022 submitted to
the respondent no.8 herein annexed at Annexure-A."
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has vehemently submitted before all the authorities
but no cognizance is taken by them and hence, they are
constrained to approach this Court. In support of his
submission, he has placed reliance on the order dated
30.09.2020 of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/15651/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
case of J.Vijayan V/s. The Supeintendent of Police & Ors. He has
submitted that the petitioners have already made an application
dated 06.09.2022 to the concerned Police authority with regard
to the registration of the FIR, but nothing has been done.
3. At this stage, it would be apposite to consider the
observations made by the Apex Court in the case of M.
Subramaniam vs. S. Janki reported in (2020)16 SCC 728 and
the case of XYZ vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2023)9
SCC 705 and in the case of Hamida vs. Rashid alias Rasheed
and Ors., reported in (2008) 1 SCC 474.
4. While referring to the judgment of Sudhir Bhaskarrao
Tambe (supra), it is observed that if the High Courts entertain
such writ petitions seeking registration of FIR, then they will be
flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any
other work, except dealing with them. It is specifically held that
the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach
the Magistrate concerned under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and if
he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is
satisfied, registration of the FIR and also ensure a proper
investigation in the matter. While approving the aforenoted view,
the Supreme Court has set aside the direction of the High Court
for registration of the FIR and has directed the respondent
thereto to approach the court of Magistrate if deem appropriate
and necessary. Thus, the law on the registration of FIR is well
settled and has been reiterated in the recent judgment of the
Supreme Court as noted herein above.
5. In the present case, the petitioner has not approached the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/15651/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
concerned Magistrate and has directly approached this Court for
the aforesaid prayer.
6. Under the circumstances and in light of the observations
made by the Apex Court, the writ petition is rejected since the
petitioner has the remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate
under section 156(3) of the Cr.PC.
7. It is noticed by this Court that various applications seeking
registration of FIR are being filed before this Court directly
without approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section
156(3) of the Code. Such applications which are directly filed are
in direct conflict with the observations of the Apex Court. The
Apex Court has expressed its concern with regard to filing of
such applications/petitions directly before the High Court since
filing of such petitions/applications are an unnecessary burden.
8. With these observations the present application is rejected.
It is hereby made clear that this Court has not examined the
merits of the case.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
