Dismissed

Hareshbhai Lalabhai Vankar v. a v Desai Police Inspector

Gujarat HC24 Sept 2018MCA/837/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant filed a contempt application alleging police violation of a direction to register an FIR. The Court found the applicant refused to record his statement, so police inaction was not willful. Application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application held devoid of merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

What the court decided

Hareshbhai Lalabhai Vankar Vs a v Desai Police Inspector — Contempt of Court | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/MCA/837/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 837 of 2018

¶4

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

¶5

HARESHBHAI LALABHAI VANKAR

¶6

Versus

¶7

A V DESAI POLICE INSPECTOR

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for APPLICANT MR DM DEVNANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for RESPONDENTS

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

¶14

Date : 24/09/2018 ORAL ORDER

¶15

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

¶16

This Miscellaneous Civil Application is filed under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that the respondents have intentionally and deliberately violated the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 23^rd January, 2018 passed in Special Criminal Application No. 9891 of 2017.

¶17

In Special Criminal Application No. 9891 of 2017 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the grievance of the applicant was that there was inaction on the part of the police authority in not registering the first Information Report, pursuant to the complaint lodged by him in writing on 6^th December, 2017, for an offence which

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

C/MCA/837/2018 ORDER

¶20

is alleged to have been committed under sections 323, 395, 397 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. This Court, by order dated 23^rd January, 2018, disposed of the petition by directing the Police Inspector, Idar Police Station, District-Sabarkantha to consider the complaint and take necessary steps. The order dated 23^rd January, 2018 passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 9891 of 2017 reads as under:

¶21

“ By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the applicant has a grievance to redress as regards the inaction on the part of the police authority in not registering the First Information Report pursuant to the complaint lodged by him in writing dated 6th December 2017 addressed to the District Superintendent of Police, District Sabarkantha, for the offence punishable under Sections 323,395, 397 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The Police Inspector, Idar Police Station, District Sabarkantha, is directed to take into consideration the complaint filed by the petitioner in writing (Annexure-B collectively to this petition) and after going through the same, take a decision, whether the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence or not. After taking into consideration the complaint and other materials, if any, the Police Inspector is of the view that the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then appropriate directions be issued for registration of the FIR forthwith at the concerned Police Station. However, the Police Inspector, after going through the materials, is of the view that no case is made out for registration of the FIR, then in such circumstances, he shall inform the petitioner in writing about the same by assigning reasons in brief, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶23

With the above observations and directions, this petition is disposed of. I clarify that I have otherwise not gone into the merits of the matter.

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

C/MCA/837/2018 ORDER

¶26

For any reason, if the police authorities refuse to register the FIR, it shall be open for the petitioner to avail of the remedy under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶27

Direct service is permitted.”

¶28

In this Misc. Civil Application, the In-Charge Police Inspector, Idar Police Station has filed affidavit-in-reply. In the said reply, while denying various allegations made by the applicant in this application, it is stated that the applicant himself is the accused in an offence registered as C.R.No.I-146/2017, for the offences punishable under sections 394 read with section 120B of IPC registered with Idar Police Station. In the said offence, the accused is alleged to have committed robbery of Rs.6.00 crores. A copy of the complaint is also annexed along with the reply affidavit filed by the respondent.

¶29

It is stated by the applicant herein in his complaint that some individuals including two individuals, who are serving in the police department, have followed the car of the applicant and robbed the amount of Rs.2.00 crores, which he had received towards the sale consideration of his tenement in the evening hours, on the date of incident. Therefore, the applicant has filed an application for registration of FIR for the offences punishable under

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

C/MCA/837/2018 ORDER

¶32

sections 323, 395, 397 read with section 120B of IPC.

¶33

In the reply affidavit filed by the respondent, in clear terms, it is stated that on the receipt of application dated 6.12.2017 filed by the applicant and further, in view of the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 23.1.2018, the applicant herein was summoned on 11 occasions right from 2.2.2018 till now. Even a notice is affixed at his residence by drawing panchnama on 11.2.2018. In spite of the same, the applicant has not remained present for recording his statement. It is also stated that when notice was sought to be served on the wife of the applicant namely, Dakshaben, she has refused to receive the same. Even in the month of February, 2018, notice was sought to be served on the mother of the applicant namely, Nathiben. She has also refused to accept the same. It is further stated that notice, which was sent by RPAD, was served. In spite of the same, the applicant herein has not approached to the respondent to record his statement. Precisely, it is the case of the respondent that the applicant himself is not cooperating with the inquiry and is trying to create a situation to show that the respondent authorities are not acting upon to comply the directions.

¶34

Page 4 of 5

¶35

C/MCA/837/2018 ORDER

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent, we have perused the material on record. For the reply affidavit filed by the In-Charge Police Inspector of Idar Police Station, no rejoinder is filed disputing the allegations. Having regard to the stand of the respondent, which is not controverted by way of rejoinder, we are of the considered view that only because the applicant herein is not responding to the notice issued by the respondent to record the statement, further steps are not taken by the respondent authorities. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondents have willfully and deliberately violated the directions issued by this Court attracting the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Thus, we are of the view that this application is devoid of merits and is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶37

(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ)

¶38

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

¶39

A.M. PIRZADA

¶40

Page 5 of 5

Hareshbhai Lalabhai Vankar v. a v Desai Police Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Hareshbhai Lalabhai Vankar v. a v Desai Police Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parul University Vs Union of India

Parul University Vs Jayanti S Ravi

Parul University Vs Dr. Jayanti S. Ravi

State of Gujarat Vs Jayantilal Babulal Tated

Shipyards Association of India Vs Union of India

Rajubhai Ratilal Raval Vs Bahdresh C Shah Principal