Gujarat High Court
Jignesh Lalitchandra Pandya vs State Of Gujarat on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2430/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION - TO LODGE
FIR/COMPLAINT) NO. 2430 of 2025
============================================
JIGNESH LALITCHANDRA PANDYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
============================================
Appearance:
MR JINESH H KAPADIA(5601) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MEGHA CHITALIYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] By way of the present petition, the petitioner prays for following
main relief:-
"(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
other Writ, order and/or direction and be pleased to direct
the Respondent No.2 herein to direct the respondent no.3
Police Inspector, Bopal Police Station, to immediately
register the F.I.R on the basis of the complaint given by
the petitioner dated 07.10.2024 at (Annexure A) and then
proceed further in accordance with law;
[2.0] Perusing the nature of grievance prima facie it appears that the
application at Annexure - A is in connection of implication of wife of
the petitioner in complaint dated 07.09.2024. Considering the nature
of allegation, it appears that no specific allegation or specific averment
viz., disclosing as to in what manner cognizable offence is committed
and hence, no case is made out based on incomplete and hazy facts.
Even if the petitioner is having any grievance qua commission of
cognizable offence then also without resorting to appropriate remedy
provided under BNSS, he has straightway approached this Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2430/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
[3.0] Therefore, in view of 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 as well as 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
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.
[5.0] With these observations, present petition is disposed of. If the
petitioner is having any grievance then he is at liberty to file
appropriate proceedings. This Court has not gone into merits of the
case.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT
