SCR.A/732/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 732 of 2008 ========================================= MOHANBHAI KAPURAJI PRAJAPATI & 1 - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 - Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR RAJESH K SHAH for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2. MR LB DABHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2 - 6. ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 17/04/2008 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Mr. R.K. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners. 2. By this petition, the petitioners seek directions against the respondent authorities to investigate incidents dated 23.6.2003, 27.8.2003, 1.2.2006, 22.6.2006, 14.10.2006, 16.12.2006, 3.1.2007, 8.1.2007 and 6.2.2007 and the complaint mentioned at Annexure A and B under the supervision of an officer not below the rank of the Deputy Commissioner of Police and to register the complaints against the accused named in the complaint. The petitioners also seek a direction against the respondent State Authorities to produce reports of the investigation in pursuance of the complaints mentioned hereinabove before this Court as well as a direction against the investigating authority to seize the passport of the accused. The petitioners also seek directions SCR.A/732/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT against the respondent authorities to take preventive measures against the accused named in the complaints and that adequate and appropriate protection be given to the petitioners. The petitioners alternatively pray for directions against the respondent authorities to transfer investigation to the City Crime, CID Crime or CBI. 3. The grievance of the petitioners in the present petition is that the police authorities have not registered FIR pursuant to the incidents referred to hereinabove. According to the petitioners, they have made a number of representations to the police officer concerned, as well as to the higher officers, however, there is total inaction and negligence on the part of the respondent authorities. 4. It is settled law as held by the Apex Court in a series of decisions that if the commission of a cognizable offence is brought to the notice of the police authorities, they are duty bound to register the same. However, in case they fail to do so, the modalities to be adopted are as set out in section 190 read with section 200 of the Code (see Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 171). In All India Institute of Medical Sciences Case (1996) 11 SCC 582, the Supreme Court has specifically observed that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained. Recently, in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, the Supreme Court has held as follows: "If a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police SCR.A/732/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT under Section 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation." The Court has expressed concern that when there are so many alternative remedies why should writ petitions and section 482 petitions be entertained. 5. In the present case the petitioners are seeking a direction against the police authorities to register FIR in connection with the incidents referred to relief paragraph 17(B). Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the present case, as according to the petitioners the police authorities are not registering FIR pursuant to the complaint given by them, the petitioners are required to adopt the modalities as set out in section 190 read with section 200 of the Code. As held by the Supreme Court, this Court should not entertain such petitions. The other reliefs claimed in the petition, apart from seeking a direction to register FIR, are consequential to the said relief. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. SCR.A/732/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT 6. For the foregoing reasons the petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (H.N. DEVANI, J.) ynvyas