Gujarat High Court
Nirmalaben W/O. Jayantibhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 12 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/8568/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION - TO LODGE
FIR/COMPLAINT) NO. 8568 of 2025
==========================================================
NIRMALABEN W/O. JAYANTIBHAI SOLANKI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN I SHAIKH(13048) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RAFIK LOKHANDWALA(5590) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 12/09/2025
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 present petition, the petitioner prays for direction
directing the Respondent authorities to lodge the FIR and take further
actions pursuant to the written complaint dated 07.12.2024 and 11.12.2024
with regard to medical negligency.
[2.0] 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, but
nothing has been done.
[3.0] 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/8568/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
(2020)16 SCC 728, and the case of XYZ vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in (2023)9 SCC 705 .
[4.0] 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.
[5.0] In the present case, the petitioner has not approached the concerned
Magistrate and has directly approached this Court for the aforesaid prayer.
[6.0] 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].
[7.0] 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
CrPC]. Such applications which are directly filed are in direct conflict with
the observations of the Apex Court. The Apex Court has expressed its
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/8568/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
concern with regard to filing of such applications/petitions directly before
the High Court since filing of such petitions/applications are an unnecessary
burden.
[8.0] With these observations, present petition is rejected. 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
