LexDOLIBEN KANTILAL PATEL versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 8 S.C.R. 28 DOLIBEN KANTILAL PATEL V. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 810 of 2013) JULY 1, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: c s. 154 - Police complaint alleging rape in police custody - Non registration of FIR - Writ petition seeking direction to register FIR and direction for investigation by CBI - Dismissed - Held: High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition directing the complainant to take recourse to complaint to the 0 Magistrate. E F s. 154 - FIR - Registration of - Held: Before registration of FIR, if the facts of the case are such which require some inquiry for the satisfaction of the charges or allegations made in the FIR, then a limited inquiry is permissible. Constitution of India, 1950 -Articles 32 and 226 - Power under, to direct CBI to conduct an investigation - Held: In such cases, Court to exercise its extraordinary power sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations. The case of the appellant was that with respect to certain land disputes, criminal case was lodged against her. She was arrested and was under police remand for five days. During the remand period, she was repeatedly raped in police custody by the complainant and the G police officials. Thereafter, she was transferred to jail. H When she was released on bail, she filed a complaint u/ s. 376 r/w. s.1208 IPC, but FIR was not lodged. She filed ·petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for direction 28 DOLIBEN KANTILAL PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT 29 &ANR. to the authorities to register the FIR and also to refer the A matter to CBI for investigation. High Court dismissed the petition, directing her to avail recourse to the remedy of complaint before the Magistrate as provided under Cr.P.C. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1.1. When the appellant had various opportunities to disclose the alleged offence of rape or misdeeds, it was not disclosed throughout the period neither to her mother when she was taken to her home C twice during the period of remand nor to the female doctors of the Civil Hospital who examined her nor to the doctors of the Jail authorities. Even at the time of production before the Magistrate after the completion of the period of remand and subsequently, when she was D remanded to the judicial custody, nothing was disclosed about any such misdeed or ill-treatment or harassment. [Para 9] [37-A-C] 1.2. High Court was justified in directing the E appellant to avail the recourse to the remedy as provided in the Cr.P.C. by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. The High Court, in order to safeguard the stand of the appellant, issued certain directions to remedy her grievance against the persons concerned. The decision of the High Court is confirmed in the light of t.he facts F relating to the background of the case, particularly, the land dispute, the complaint regarding the same and various subsequent circumstances including her silence about the non-disclosure of the alleged rape. [Para 12] [38-H; 39-A-C] G 2. Before registration of the FIR, an officer should be satisfied. In other words, if the facts are such which require some inquiry for the satisfaction about the charges or allegations made in the FIR or he may have H 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A entertained a reasonable belief or doubt, then he may make some inquiry. By virtue of the expression "reason to suspect the commission of an offence", the commission of cognizable offence, based on the facts mentioned has to be considered with the attending B circumstances, if available. If there is a background/ materials or information, it is the duty of the officer to take note of the same and proceed according to law. If the facts are such which require some inquiry for the satisfaction about the charges or allegations made in the c FIR then such a limited inquiry is permissible. [Para 10] [37-F-H; 38-A-B] State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp (1) sec 335: 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 - relied on. D 3. Despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of such constitutional powers. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct an investigation, such an E order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or mer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.