Gujarat High Court
The Parth Township Co-Operative ... vs State Of Gujarat on 11 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3164/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION - TO LODGE
FIR/COMPLAINT) NO. 3164 of 2025
==========================================================
THE PARTH TOWNSHIP CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SERVICE SOCIETY
LIMITED THROUGH KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAYPRAKASH UMOT(3581) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 11/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf
of the respondent - State of Gujarat.
[1.0] By way of the present petition, the petitioner prays for appropriate
direction, directing the respondents to register the FIR pursuant to the
written complaint dated 23.12.2024.
[2.0] Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the police is
pressurizing the petitioner to settle a dispute and filed an additional
affidavit in this regard and levelled allegations against the police officials.
[3.0] From the record, it appears that the police has inquired into the
matter and informed the outcome to the petitioner that two civil suits are
pending and dispute is civil in nature. Thereafter, chapter case was filed and
proceedings under Section 126 of the Code came to be initiated. Grievance
of the petitioner is against the police officials but no such prayer is sought
for in the petition and only prayed to direct the respondent to lodge the FIR.
Hence, question does not arise to pass any direction beyond the prayer.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3164/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
[4.0] 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 .
[5.0] While referring to the judgment of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs.
Hemant Yashwant Dhage & Ors. reported in (2016)6 SCC 277 and M.
Subramaniam vs. S. Janki reported in (2020)16 SCC 728, 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 175(3) of the BNSS [section 156(3) of CrPC] 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.
[6.0] In the present case, the petitioner has not approached the concerned
Magistrate and has directly approached this Court for the aforesaid prayer.
[7.0] 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 175(3) of the BNSS
[section 156(3) of CrPC].
[8.0] It is noticed by this Court that various petitions seeking registration
of FIR are being filed before this Court directly without approaching the
concerned Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS [section 156(3) of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3164/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
CrPC]. 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. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with any outcome, then he is at
liberty to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum.
[9.0] With these observations, present petition is disposed of. It is hereby
made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the case. Rule is
hereby discharged.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
