Bhuriya Madubhai Anupbhai vs State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 1156 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Bhuriya Madubhai Anupbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 9 February, 2024

                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




     R/SCR.A/1840/2024                            ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024

                                                                                  undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

      R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION - TO LODGE
                 FIR/COMPLAINT) NO. 1840 of 2024

==========================================================
                         BHURIYA MADUBHAI ANUPBHAI
                                   Versus
                             STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHREYANG S VAYEDA(10917) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR TRUPESH KATHIRIA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

                              Date : 09/02/2024
                               ORAL ORDER

Draft amendment is allowed. To be carried out forthwith.

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent-State.

2. Present petition is preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:

"13. (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased direct by appropriate writ by directing the Bajwa Police Station, Vadodara Rural and Superintendent of Police, Vaodara Rural for lodging of cognizable offence;

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to appropriate writ, directions to appoint Superintendent of Police, Vadodara for lodging of cognizable offence;

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/1840/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

(D) Any other relief deemed just and proper may please be granted in the interest of justice.

3. 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. He has submitted that the petitioner has already made several requests to the concerned Police Authority with regard to the registration of the FIR, but nothing has been done.

4. 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 .

5. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/1840/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

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.

6. In view of the above, the respondent-Police Commissioner, Vadodara is directed to look into the matter in accordance with law preferable within a period of four weeks.

7. With this direction the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

8. However, it is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case.

(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ALI