Gujarat High Court Rejects Prayer to Issue a Writ of Mandamus, Directs Complainant to Avail Alternate Remedy

Must Read

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was...

Follow us

The Court directed the complainant to avail alternate remedy because the petitioner had not approached the concerned Magistrate and directly approached this Court, praying for issuing the writ of mandamus against the respondent to investigate his case, the present petition was thus rejected. The Court held that the aggrieved must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Petitioner’s Submissions

Learned Advocate for the petitioner had submitted that the respondent authorities had not investigated the present matter and also threatened him to sign some compromise papers. He had contended that in the present case, the offence under Section 306 of IPC was hence, established and a written complaint was thus given by the complainant, but nothing was done in that regard and no FIR was registered.

Petitioner’s Prayers

By way of the present petition, the petitioner had prayed for a relief to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, directing the respondents to register the petitioner’s complaint as FIR and investigate the same in a fair and unbiased manner.

Court’s Observations

The Court observed that similar issues had been adjudicated before, which could be referred to, like the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Others in which it was held that if someone had any grievance that his FIR was not being registered by the police station, under Section 154 of CrPC, then he could approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC by a written application. Even if that won’t yield any satisfactory result, the aggrieved person could file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. The Magistrate can then direct the FIR to be registered and a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the complainant, no proper investigation was made.

It was also observed that it was a well-settled fact that when any such power was expressly granted by a statute, there would also be impliedly included in the grant, every such power and control, the denial of which would render that grant itself ineffective. So, where an Act conferred such jurisdiction, it impliedly also granted further, the power of carrying out all such acts as were essential for carrying out its execution.

Court’s Directions

The Court was of the view that if the High Courts keep entertaining all such writ petitions, then they will be flooded only with such writ petitions and won’t be able to carry out any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Therefore, the Court held that the complainant in the present case must avail of his alternate remedy of approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC and if he would do so, the Magistrate will have to ensure, if prima facie he was satisfied, registration of the FIR and also ensure proper investigation in the present matter.

In the present circumstances, the Court had set aside the direction of the High Court for registration of the FIR and investigation into the present matter by the police authorities. At the same time, it was stated that the order wouldn’t impede in the way of the first respondent, filing documents and papers with the police according to the said complaint dated 18.09.2008 and the police authorities on being satisfied that a criminal offence was made out would have the liberty to register an FIR. It would be open for the respondent to approach the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate if deemed necessary and appropriate. Moreover, it will be equally open to the appellants and others to take steps to protect their interests.

In the present case, the petitioner had not approached the concerned Magistrate and rather, had directly approached this High Court for the aforesaid prayer. Under such circumstances and in light of the observations made by the Apex Court, the present writ petition was rejected.

Click here to read the Judgment


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

Supreme Court Upheld “Environmental Rule of Law” in NGT Decision to Demolish Illegal Hotel on Forest Land

This case concerns the dispute relating to the additional construction of hotel-cum-restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex along with a bus stand and...

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -