DOLIBEN KANTILAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the prayers:

(2.) Heard learned Senior Advocate Shri B.B.Naik appearing with learned Advocate Shri Jal S. Unwala for the Petitioner and learned APP Shri H.L.Jani for Respondent No.1-State of Gujarat.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate Shri B.B.Naik submitted that the present Petition seeking registration of FIR and other reliefs, has a reference to the land situated at Vadodara, for which the complaint is filed and registered. He submitted that there is a police station of CID Crime at Vadodara and still the same has not been registered at Vadodara, but it has been registered as FIR being I-CR No.5 of 2012 at CID Crime, Gandhinagar. He therefore submitted that though the police station is having jurisdiction at Vadodara, FIR has been registered with CID Crime, Gandhinagar Police Station deliberately with an ulterior motive. He submitted that the acts, omissions and commissions alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner are at Vadodara and therefore the FIR could not have been registered at Gandhinagar. It is submitted that the Petitioner is NRI or a foreign national and she has been roped in because she had a joint account with her father. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Naik submitted that it is required to be mentioned that the arrest was made at midnight without a lady Police Constable or an officer pursuant to the FIR and some documents have been seized. However, only to pressurize the Petitioner - accused for the other land dispute at Rajkot, she has not only been arrested but the alleged offences against her of rape have been committed. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Naik therefore submitted that when the complaint is sought to be made, the same has not been registered and the inquiry has been made, which is not permissible. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Naik strenuously submitted that instead of registering the FIR, the Petitioner is sought to be arrested and pressurized. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Naik submitted that the Petitioner has been arrested at midnight without the lady Police Constable / officer and the time of arrest is shown as 6:40 am as per the record. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Naik submitted that she has been remanded to the police custody for 5 days by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate and thereafter she has been sent to judicial custody. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Naik therefore submitted that there was no justification for remand and no procedure / guidelines as laid down in case of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 1994 AIR(SC) 1349as well as Siddharam Satlingappa Mahetra v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2011 1 SCC 694have been followed. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Naik also submitted that the Petitioner was kept in the office of CID Crime, Meghaninagar Police Station for 5 days where there is no facility of lock-up. It was submitted that during this period, the rape was committed by the I.O. and other police personnel, for which the complaint is sought to be given, which is not registered under Section 154. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Naik submitted that as the higher officials are involved and as she did not disclose the same for some time to jail authorities, it was submitted that she desired to consult the Senior Advocate. However, Senior Advocate could not visit her and another Junior Advocate visited her in jail. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Naik also referred to the communication by the Consulate at Bombay and Center for Amarican Citizen.