KETANKUMAR BABULAL PATEL Vs. KESARBEN JESANGJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) In these appeals challenge is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court disposing of several petitions. By the impugned judgment in each case the High Court inter alia directed as follows :

(3.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : A complaint alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 103 of 2008. The basis of the complaint was that on 29.3.2008 the petitioners in Special Criminal Application No.1060 of 2008 approached the District Superintendent of Police, Ahmedabad requesting him to exercise powers under Section 154 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). But they were advised to approach the police station and assurance was given that they shall get justice. Thereafter, complaint was filed on 29.3.2008 before the Sarkhej Police Station but the same was not accepted. It was alleged that the respondents in the complaint were politically very influential persons and were prominent builders and hence police did not accept the complaint. It was also stated that the District Superintendent of Police instead of helping them to give justice informed the respondent no.1 in the complaint about the said complaint on telephone and did not initiate action against the said respondent as he was a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly and belonged to the ruling party. It was highlighted that if the records of the telephones and mobiles of District Superintendent of Police and the Police Inspector are called for, it will become crystal clear that such communications were there. The scripts of the talks between the concerned officials and respondent No.1 have to be called for from the mobile companies. An order was passed earlier in Special Criminal Application No.918 of 2007. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class passed an order contrary to it by directing as follows :