JAWAHARBHAI GAUTAMCHANDRA PATHAK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer is made to the effect that there is a wrong complaint filed on 17/5/2017 before respondent no. 3 - Police Inspector, Pardi Police Station, Valsad indicating commission of cognizable offence, but so far no steps have been taken to register FIR under the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and as such, by invoking writ jurisdiction, the petitioner has prayed for the reliefs which are set out in paragraph 6.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was Deputy Sarpanch of the Bagvada Gram Panchayat for the period commencing from 2006 to 2011 and was also member of the said gram panchayat from 2011 to 2016 and later on again from 2016 till date, the petitioner is discharging his duty as Deputy Sarpanch. On account of one false FIR being C.R. No. II-

(3.) of 2011 registered before Pardi Police Station, Valsad, for the offences punishable under Sec. 323 , 504 , 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the petitioner and his brother, but actually no incident has taken place and the same was a got-up story by the Investigating Officer of the Pardi Police Station. In fact, according to the petitioner, the reason for filing such false information in the form of FIR is that for the period from 2011 to 2016 some persons who were running Gayatri Stone Quarry were illegally mining the stones from the hilly area and since the petitioner tried to stop the said illegal activity of mining, the accused persons in collusion with each other has lodged false First Information Report against the petitioner and his brother. Thereafter investigation has been carried out in that respect and charge sheet was also filed and the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 97 of 2011 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pardi. The learned Magistrate after adjudicating was pleased to pass an order of sentence to the accused persons to undergo six months imprisonment vide order dtd. 9/3/2016 and feeling aggrieved by the said conviction, the petitioner has challenged the said order by way of filing appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2017 before the learned Sessions Court, Valsad, who then after adjudication was pleased to acquit the petitioner by observing that the Investigating Officer and the Doctor had colluded with each other and concocted false certificate with a view to see that the present petitioner can be convicted and it was also observed that wrong evidence has been brought on record with an ulterior motive and the court expressed an opinion that if the petitioner wants to pursue further against the wrong doers then the petitioner has no option but to approach the government machinery against wrong doers and as such, based upon that, the petitioner on account of such observation gave written complaint to S.P. Valsad and Police Sub Inspector, Pardi Police Station as well as to the office of I.G., Surat, but till date no steps have been taken by registering FIR against the wrong doers and it is on account of such, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. After notice having been issued, learned advocate Mr. Siddhant Parikh has submitted that in such a situation when clear observation has been made by the learned Sessions Court to permit the petitioner to take a step by approaching the government machinery against the wrong doers and when that is being initiated the wrong doers are allowed to freely continue the activity since no action has been taken by the concerned police authorities in connection with his application and as such, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of this petition for the reliefs as set out in paragraph 6. Mr. Parikh has further submitted that whenever there is breach of fundamental right or any statutory duty not being observed, it is always open for the writ court to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India and there is no expressed bar to exercise such jurisdiction of cognizable offence. As per Mr. Parikh that despite aforesaid step having been taken, the grievance of the petitioner has not be attended properly by the respondent authority and therefore, that being the situation, appropriate direction in the application deserves to be issued.