Gujarat High Court
Patel Bhadreshkumar Talshibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 12 December, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7954/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION - TO LODGE
FIR/COMPLAINT) NO. 7954 of 2023
==========================================================
PATEL BHADRESHKUMAR TALSHIBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANKURBHAI G KIRI(12575) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 12/12/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner prays for
following main relief:-
"8(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow
this application by directing the respondents herein to
take legal action against the respondent No.5 and
thereby direct the respondent No.4 to register the FIR
under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with
Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against
respondent No.5 for committing systematic fraud and
cheating with the petitioner and others by issuing
suitable writ, order or direction in the interest of justice."
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, he is 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 case of J.Vijayan V/s. The
Superintendent of Police & Ors. He has submitted that the
petitioner has already made an application dated 26.04.2023 to the
concerned Police Inspector with regard to the registration of the FIR,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7954/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023
undefined
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 .
4. While referring to the judgment of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe
Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage & Ors., reported in 2016 (6) SCC
277, 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
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 approach the concerned Magistrate
under section 156(3) of the Cr.PC.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/7954/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023
undefined
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)
SUCHIT
