Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Punjabhai vs State

High Court Of Gujarat|30 March, 2012

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Heard Mr.Chintan Popat, learned advocate for Mr.AM Dagli, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr.Raval, learned APP for the respondent No.1 - State.
Mr.Popat, learned advocate for the applicant drew my attention to the copy of written complaint forwarded by the applicant to P.I., Kodinar police station, Annexure-A, and submitted that despite the fact that the allegation of serious cognizable offences were made in said application, yet, the concerned police officer did not register the FIR. My attention was also drawn to the copy of an application dated 20.8.2011, addressed to P.I., Kodinar police station by the complainant for getting certain information under the RTI Act. Mr.Popat, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that despite the receipt of such application, even no information is supplied to the applicant under the RTI Act.
Mr.Raval, learned APP for the respondent No.1 - State drew my attention to Sub-section 3 of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. and submitted that the applicant has remedy available under the said provision, namely, he may send such information (application) to Superintendent of Police concerned and upon receipt of such application, if the Superintendent of Police concerned is satisfied that such information discloses the commission of cognizable offences, then shall either investigate the case himself or direct the investigation to be made by any police officer, subordinate to him in the manner provided under the Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicant shall take recourse to this provision.
Upon such statement made by Mr.Raval, learned APP for the respondent No.1- State, Mr.Popat, learned advocate for the applicant drew my attention to paragraph 3.11 in the petition and submitted that it has been specifically averred in the petition memo on oath that as per the provision of Sub-section 3 of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., the applicant had sent a copy of the complaint to Dy.S.P., Junagadh by registered post, but still no action is taken.
In the above view of the matter, and more particularly, considering Sub-section 3 of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., at this stage, this Court is of the opinion that if the copy of the application is already sent by the applicant to Superintendent of Police, Junagadh by registered post, then the concerned authority shall take action as contemplated under Sub-section 3 of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.
For the foregoing reasons, the concerned Superintendent of Police, Junagadh is directed to take appropriate decision in connection with the application of the applicant as averred in paragraph 3.11 in this petition, preferably within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The concerned police officer shall be at liberty to call the applicant for personal hearing and the applicant shall be at liberty to provide any relevant material required by the concerned police authority to comply with the provisions contained under Sub-section 3 of Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. The concerned authority shall take appropriate decision regarding the request made by the applicant for police protection.
Upon request of Mr.Popat, learned advocate for the applicant, liberty of the applicant is reserved to move this Court in case of any difficulty. D.s permitted.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) (binoy) Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Punjabhai vs State

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgmentDate
30 March, 2012