BHAILALBHAI SENDHABHAI VALAND Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have a grievance to redress as regards the inaction on the part of the respondent Nos.5 to 7 in not taking any action against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 pursuant to the representations dtd. 12/4/2024 and 19/4/2024 made by them in writing addressed to the D.S.P and I.G.P, Ahmedabad Rural.

(2.) The glimpse of the entire controversy is that the applicants herein are the father and sons. The applicant No.1 is the father and the applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons, in which, the applicant No.2-Ashokbhai has two daughters and one son namely, Nirali, Hemali and Lakshy. Nirali is elder daughter studied upto standard 10th who was doing the beauty parlor work.

(3.) Learned advocate Ms. N.J.Parekh appearing for the applicants submits that there has been a gross abuse and misuse of official powers conferred upon respondents No.2 to 4 as the conduct on the part of the respondent Nos.2 to 4, being a public servant serving in the department where the victim people are eyeing to get justice, is quite illegal and negligent one. Learned advocate Ms. Parekh submits that one Krunal illegally took the daughter of the applicant No.2 from his lawful guardianship, and therefore, the applicants were decided to get aid of the police. However, instead of providing helping hand to the applicants to find out their girl, the police meted out atrocities to the applicants by brutally beating them in the police station. She further submits that the applicants have tried their level best to get the FIR registered against the guilty persons, however, the respondent-police authorities, reasons best known to them, have declined to register the complaint. The said action and conduct on the part of the police authority can be considered a violation of human rights and law, and it infringes on a citizen's right to access justice and due process. Learned advocate Ms. Parekh also submits that every citizen has the right to seek redressal of their grievances, and the police are mandated to register FIRs for cognizable offenses, and refusing to register an FIR is a denial of this right. She submits that the police authority must act within the bounds of law. In the case on hand, due to such an inhuman approach at the end of the respondent Nos.2 to 4, the applicants made representation to the respondent Nos.5 to 7 seeking initiation of action against the erring officers. However, the respondent Nos.5 to 7 have not taken any action against them as on date. She further submits that now a days cases of custodial violence are increasing day by day and the protectors are turning into perpetrators. Due increase in police atrocities in the police station, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent past, in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh & Ors. , reported in AIR 2021 SC 64 has issued certain directions to the State Governments as well as Union territories to install CCTV cameras in each and every police station functioning in the respective State and/or Union Territory, which must be equipped with night vision and must necessarily consist of audio as well as video footage. In the present case also, as per the direction issued by this Court to produce the CCTV footages of the police station, the same is produced, and if the Hon'ble Court see the same, then it clearly appears that the applicant No.2 was being taken outside the police station in an unconscious condition by their companions, and in support of the same, learned advocate Ms. Parekh has also produced the medical papers, which shows that serious injuries were received by the applicant No.2 upon being brutally beaten by the respondent Nos.2 to 4.