Rule.
Mr.Raval, learned APP appears and waives service of rule for the respondents.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and at the request of learned counsel representing both the sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal today.
Heard Mr.Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Raval, learned APP for the respondents.
In the instant matter, the petitioner initially forwarded a written complaint to respondent No.4 - P.I. Naranpura police station against certain accused persons for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 471, 474, 120B r/w. Section 114 of the IPC on 24.2.2010. After forwarding said written complaint to the concerned police station, since nothing was done, on 28.7.2010, the petitioner - complainant sent a communication addressed to respondent No.3 - Deputy Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad for doing needful in the matter and to register her FIR. Despite said communication, since no action was taken, the petitioner - original complainant filed a private complaint in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.9, Ahmedabad against the accused for the same offences, on 27.10.2010, which was registered as Criminal Inquiry Case No.242 of 2010. As per the initial order passed by the concerned learned Magistrate on 27.10.2010, below said private complaint, the further proceeding of said private complaint came to be stayed u/s.210 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.', for short), as it was disclosed that on 24.2.2010, the petitioner - complainant had forwarded a written complaint to the concerned police station for registration of said complaint as FIR and for investigation. It further transpires that the concerned trial Court also called for the progress report from the concerned police station. On 27.1.2011, the concerned police station forwarded the progress report addressed to the concerned learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Annexure-D, wherein the concerned police officer in the report, ultimately, observed that the disputed signatures prima-facie appear to be forged.
Mr.Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner - original complainant submitted that despite the fact that such progress report was forwarded by the concerned police station to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate way back on 27.1.2011, thereafter, nothing was done by the concerned Court in this matter. Mr.Dave drew my attention to a notification dated 28.2.2011 and submitted that pursuant to said notification, the concerned police station should have registered the FIR forwarded by the complainant to the concerned police station.
Heard Mr.Raval, learned APP for the respondents.
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, so also considering the relevant papers annexed with this application, as observed above, in the instant case, there is no dispute that till date, the written complaint forwarded to the concerned police station by the petitioner for registering the same as FIR and requesting the concerned police officer to investigate the matter, admittedly, the said FIR was not registered. As stated above, ultimately, the petitioner - complainant filed private complaint before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.9, Ahmedabad, Annexure-C, the same came to be stayed u/s.210 of the Cr.P.C. by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 27.10.2010 and the progress report was called for. The progress report dated 27.1.2011, Annexure-D, ultimately reveals that prima-facie the disputed signatures were found to be forged. Even in said progress report, nothing is mentioned that the written complaint initially forwarded by the petitioner complainant on 24.2.2010, requesting the registration of said complaint as FIR is registered or not. It is true that in the progress report, there is a mention of one FIR being Naranpura police station C.R.No.I-561 of 2006, but admittedly, that cannot be the registration of said complaint forwarded by the petitioner - complainant to the concerned police station, Annexure-A, because that was forwarded on 24.2.2010 and not in the year 2006 when some another FIR came to be registered as C.R.No.561 of 2006, as referred in the progress report. Even Mr.Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner states that C.R.No.561 of 2006 is not the said FIR, which, in the instant matter the petitioner - complainant intended to lodge.
In the above view of the matter, now since against the same accused and on the basis of the identical allegations and the accusations of the identical offences, a private criminal complaint is pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed further with the said private complaint in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C., as contemplated under Sub-section 3 of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C.
For the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed and learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.9, Ahmedabad, is directed to proceed further with Criminal Inquiry Case No.242 of 2010 in accordance with the provisions contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure at the earliest since the matter is very old. To avoid further delay, Mr.Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner - original complainant requests that the petitioner - complainant shall remain present before the concerned trial Court on 22.2.2012. The petitioner - complainant shall remain present in the Court of concerned learned Metropolitan Magistrate in connection with the Criminal Inquiry Case No.242 of 2010 on 22.2.2012. Accordingly, the instant application stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. D.S permitted.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) (binoy) Top