Dismissed

Balaji Associates v. Manoj Shashidhar, Commissioner of Police

Gujarat HC13 Jul 2018MCA/3346/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a contempt application alleging violation of its directions under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. regarding complaint handling delays. The court accepted the respondents' explanation that steps were duly taken, finding no willful violation, and noted that remedies against the final police order exist under Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous civil application filed under the Contempt of Courts Act was dismissed as there was no willful violation of court directions.

Balaji Associates Vs Manoj Shashidhar, Commissioner of… — Contempt of Court | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/MCA/3346/2017 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3346 of 2017

¶4

¶5

SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1061 of 2016

¶6

==========================================================

¶7

BALAJI ASSOCIATES

¶8

Versus

¶9

MANOJ SHASHIDHAR, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

Appearance:

¶12

MR ASIT B JOSHI(2567) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN YAGNIK, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the RESPONDENTS

¶13

==========================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶15

and

¶16

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

¶17

Date : 13/07/2018

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY)

¶20

1.This Misc. Civil Application is filed under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
alleging that the respondents have violated the
directions issued in the order dated 27.09.2016
passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application
(Direction) No.1061 of 2016.

¶21

2.We have heard learned counsel for the applicant
and learned Assistant Government Pleader.

¶22

3.The operative portion of the order dated
27.09.2016 reads as under:

¶23

“3. Bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the directions issued by

¶24

Page 1 of 4

¶25

C/MCA/3346/2017 ORDER

¶26

this Court in the order dated April 22, 2016 and the fact that the respondent – authority has not complied with the said directions till date, the petitioner shall now approach the Senior Officer of the respondent No.3 under section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If the petitioner approaches such Senior Officer under Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C., he shall look into the complaint of the petitioner and decide the same bearing in mind the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. State of Utter Pradesh and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such complaint.”

¶27

4. In the reply affidavit filed by respondent No.2Police Inspector, Vadi Police Station, Vadodara, the averments relating to disposal of this application are made in Paragraphs-4 and 5, which read as under:

¶28

“4. It is most respectfully submitted that the applicant pursuant to the direction of this Hon’ble Court, through the Hon’ble Single Judge, rendered in order dated 29.07.2016 approached the Commissioner of Police, Vadodara with his complaint dated 09.01.2017.

¶29

It is most respectfully submitted at this juncture that the senior official to the Police Inspector, Vadi Police Station, would be the Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone 3, (equivalent rank of Superintendent of Police) as prescribed under Section 154(3) of the Code.

¶30

Be that as it may, the Commissioner of Police forwarded the complaint of the applicant to Police Inspector, Vadi Police Station, for investigation through communication dated 13.01.2017. A copy of which is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-R1.

¶31

5. It is most respectfully submitted that post

¶32

Page 2 of 4

¶33

C/MCA/3346/2017 ORDER

¶34

the aforesaid communication of the of the Police Commissioner, investigation was carried out by the PI, Vadi Police Station. Statements were sought and many of the named persons in the complaint were also found to have deceased. The said inquiry consumed time. Lastly after having availed statements and having concluded the inquiry, the Police Inspector, Vadi Police Station, presented his report to this Assistant Police Commissioner, E Division, for its onward consideration. A copy of the report of the Police Inspector, Vadi Police Station is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE R2. The said report was furthered to the Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone 3, who was also directed by the Commissioner of Police Vadodara to look into the matter as directed by this Hon’ble Court. The Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone 3, after having considered the report of the PI, Vadi Police Station, and, the complaint made by the applicant, agreed with the findings of the report of PI Vadi Police Station. The DCP, Zone 3, thus concluded that no cognizable offence is made out. A copy of the order dated 07.05.2018 of the DCP, Zone 3 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE R3.

¶35

At this juncture it may be noted that there are about 13 registered offences lodged against the applicant pertaining to frauds in land matter and the present complaint is also a counter blast to FIR bearing I-C.R. No.303 of 2013, registered at Gotri Police Station, where the present applicant is the accused No.1. A copy of the said FIR is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE R4.”

¶36

5.Learned counsel appearing for the applicant
referring to the directions issued by this Court has
submitted that, ultimately D.C.P., Zone 3, has taken
decision and passed an order on 07.05.2018. There is
no explanation for the delay and the order is also

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

C/MCA/3346/2017 ORDER

¶39

not in accordance with the dictum in the case of
Lalita Kumari vs. State of Utter Pradesh and others,
reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1.

¶40

6.It is true that there is some delay. But in view
of the averments made in the reply affidavit by
respondent No.2, which is extracted above, we are of
the view that it cannot be said that there is a
willful and deliberate violation of the directions
issued by this Court by the respondents. Accepting
the explanation offered in the reply affidavit, we
are of the view that the respondents have duly
complied the directions issued by this Court. Having
regard to the steps taken by the respondents, it
cannot be said that there is a violation of the
directions. If at all the applicant is aggrieved by
the order of the respondent authorities, a remedy is
available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶41

7.In that view of the matter, we do not find any
merit in the application and hence, the same is
dismissed.

¶42

(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ)

¶43

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

¶44

piyush

¶45

Page 4 of 4

Balaji Associates v. Manoj Shashidhar, Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji Associates v. Manoj Shashidhar, Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Farid Ahmed Mohammedbhai Nagori Vs M Thennarasan Commissioner

Sarla Achuthan Vs Anju Sharma, Secretary, Education Department

The Demai Group Vi.Ka.Seva Sahakri Mandali Ltd. Thru Chairman Kirtikumar Girishbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Meetkumar Dineshkumar Patel Vs Gujaratuniversity

Bhuvanchandra Upadhyay S/O Narhari Upadhyay Vs Gujarat University

Rabari Bhojabhai Danabhai Vs Arvind Agrawal