IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 11467 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.R.SHAH ======================================================== 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? --------------------------------------------------------- KOLI RAGHAV RAMJIBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ---------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 11467 of 1993 MR KJ KAKKAD for Petitioner. Mr. LR Poojari, AGP for Respondent No. 1-3 NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 4-7 ---------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.R.SHAH Date of decision: 07/04/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT Shri KJ Kakkad, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is absent. This matter was notified for final hearing on 31st March 2004. The matter was called out thrice, but the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner did not remain present and therefore the matter was adjourned to 1st April 2004. On 1st April 2004 also when the matter was called out the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner did not remain present. Therefore in the interests of justice the matter was adjourned to 2nd April 2004. On 2nd April 2004 also, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner did not remain present. The matter was therefore adjourned giving last opportunity to the petitioner. But today also when the matter is called out the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner did not remain present. Under the circumstances, this Court has no other alternative but to proceed with the matter ex-parte and to decide the same on merits. 2. In the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order, or direction against the respondents granting appropriate amount of compensation against the respondents considering income from agriculture of the petitioner being Rs. 12000 per year. 3. The petitioner who was resident of Village Mesavada,Taluka & District Rajkot was having lands in the said village. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was wrongfully taken away by the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 from the house at Village Mesavada in the Jeep on the false charges fabricated against the petitioner at the behest of certain miscreants and the petitioner was severely beaten with sticks by the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7. It is further alleged that on 7.3.1993 in the morning the petitioner was taken to Rajkot Taluka police station and from there he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Rajkot where the learned Magistrate was told by the petitioner that he wanted to be released rather than complaining against the police and the petitioner came to be released on bail by the learned Magistrate and thereafter he was admitted to Government Hospital, Rajkot from where he has also lodged complaint to the police against the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 for beating him and causing him injury. The petitioner has produced Injury Certificate obtained from the Government Hospital for the injuries caused by respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 which is at Annexure A to the petition. It is also borne out from the record that the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) at Rajkot which is registered as Criminal Inquiry No. 153/93 and the complaint was filed on 10th March 1993. The petitioner had approached various authorities against respondents No. 5, 6 and 7, however no action has been taken and therefore the petitioner has approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer with regard to compensation. 4. Shri L.R. Poojari, learned AGP appearing for the State Government and the respondents has submitted that a criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner for the offences under Prohibition Act and a chargesheet has already been submitted against the petitioner in the competent court. It is also submitted by Shri Poojari that as such the petitioner has already filed a criminal complaint against the aforesaid respondents which was numbered as M.Case No. 29/93 in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Rajkot for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 504, 447, 448, 120B read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned JMFC passed an order for investigation, and after investigation a final report has been sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the case is pending before the trial Court. Therefore, he requested that in view of the criminal case pending against the respondents the prayer of the petitioner for compensation cannot be granted at this stage and hence requested to dismiss the present Special Civil Application as the same is premature at this stage. Shri Poojari, learned AGP has also relied upon a judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of A.K. Singh vs. Uttarakhand Jan Morcha And Others, reported in (1999) S.C.C. (Cri.) Page 580, more particularly Paras 11 and 12 of the said judgment. 5. In the aforesaid case of A.K. Singh (Supra), the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India passed an order to pay RS. 10 lakhs to each of the dependants by way of compensation who died in police firing. Against that judgment, the State Government and the concerned officers preferred Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners State Government and the officers that as the case is pending before the Magistrate the High Court should not have passed an order with regard to payment of compensation when the evidence is to be adduced and therefore the order passed by the High Court with regard to payment of compensation is at a premature stage. Accepting the aforesaid argument the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid case has quashed and set aside the order passed by the High Court with regard to payment of compensation by observing that "We agree with submission of the learned Senior Counsel that learned Judges should have avoided making observations concerning matters which are pending consideration by subordinate courts. The High Court did more than that. Without trial, and even without considering the evidence which may be adduced in the cases, learned Judges ordered the Government to pay Rs. 10 lakhs each to the dependants of all the persons who died in police firing, Rs. 10 lakhs each were given to the victims of molestation; Rs. Fifty thousand each for 398 persons who were detained by the police." Making the aforesaid observation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed and set aside the order passed by the High Court by which the High Court ordered to pay compensation by holding that it is at a premature stage and during the pendency of a case before the subordinate court the High Court should not have passed the order. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and in view of the fact that the case is pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Rajkot and the report has been sent after inquiry, to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot with regard to allegations made in the present Special Civil Application, it would not be proper for this Court to order for payment of compensation as referred in the Special Civil Application. It will be premature at this stage to pass any order to pay compensation for the allegations made in the Special Civil Application when the case is pending in the trial Court with regard to allegations. If ultimately it is found by the trial Court on evidence that the petitioner was brutally beaten and the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 have committed the offences,appropriate proceedings can be initiated thereafter, but at this stage no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner with regard to compensation. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petition is required to be dismissed and is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. rmr. [ M.R. Shah, J. ]