Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1969 (GUJ)

Ashok Kamalprasad Jain v. State of Gujarat

2016-09-06

SONIA GOKANI

body2016
ORDER : SONIA GOKANI, J.: Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 has waived service of notice for respondents no. 1, 2 and 3. There shall be no requirement for this Court to issue notice to respondent No. 4 in wake of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manharibhai MaljibhaiKakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel reported in (2012) 10 SCC 517 and the decision of this Court in the case of Bharat A. Patel, Director of Hytaisun Magnetics Limited v. Mahendrabhai Naranbhai Patelreported in (2014) 1 GLR 160 . 2. This petition is for seeking direction against the respondents for lodgment of the First Information Report against respondent No. 4 herein on the ground that he has forged power of attorney in relation to the property situated at Ahwa, District: Dangs. 3. It appears that the petitioner had approached this Court on earlier occasion by preferring Special Criminal Application No. 3596 of 2016 and this Court on 21.6.2016 had directed the police Sub-Inspector of the concerned police station to lodge the First Information Report as cognizable offence is made out in the following manner. “3. Bearing in mind the aforementioned ratio laid down by the Apex Court, the respondent No. 2-Police Sub Inspector shall look into the said written complaint of the petitioner and lodge the first information report if any cognizable offence is made out therein; if not, for the limited purpose of knowing as to whether cognizable offence is revealed, the preliminary inquiry shall be conducted. The petitioner shall be forwarded a copy of the first information report, if any registered, at his residence forthwith. In the event, the respondent No. 2 choses not to lodge the first information report, the petitioner shall be communicated in writing the brief reasons accordingly. Such exercise shall be completed by the respondent No. 2 at the earliest, but not later than one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The entire exercise shall be done at the earliest without further loss of time. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Direct Service is permitted.” 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that communication received on 11.7.2016 is indicative that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature, and therefore, he was asked to take recourse of the civil jurisdiction of the Court. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Direct Service is permitted.” 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that communication received on 11.7.2016 is indicative that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature, and therefore, he was asked to take recourse of the civil jurisdiction of the Court. It is also mentioned that the Collector, Ahwa has also ordered on 4.12.2015 that the petitioner has been directed to approach the Civil Court and therefore, nothing needed to be done at his end. 5. This has aggrieved the petitioner and, therefore, he is before this Court with the aforementioned reliefs:- “14. The petitioner, therefore, humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: (A) Be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, Your Lordship may be pleased to direct the respondents Authorities more particularly respondent no. 4 to done proper investigation in the matter and register the complaint of the petitioner dated 19/04/2016 in the interest of justice. (B) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and fit.” 6. Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is reproduced hereunder:- “154. Information in cognizable cases.-(3) Any person, aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.” 7. Petitioner may approach the Superintendent of Police, Ahwa, Dangs. He shall look into the matter in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure and also bear in mind the dictum of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 . He shall reply to the petitioner at the earliest but in no case later than a fortnight from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 8. The petitioner, if is aggrieved by the outcome, may move the Criminal Court by providing complaint under section 190/200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He shall reply to the petitioner at the earliest but in no case later than a fortnight from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 8. The petitioner, if is aggrieved by the outcome, may move the Criminal Court by providing complaint under section 190/200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If he prefers any such complaint, the same shall be considered on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.