(Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy, JJ.)
Dinesh Chandubhai Patel _____________________________ Appellant
v.
State of Gujarat and Anr. __________________________ Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1164 of 2016 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8105 of 2016], decided on November 29, 2016
With
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8467 of 2016, Criminal Appeal No(s). 1165-1168 of 2016 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 8149-8152 of 2016] With Criminal Appeal No(s). 1169 of 2016 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 8967 of 2016]
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
In Crl. A. No. 1164 OF 2016@ SLP(Crl.) No. 8105 of 2016 and
In Crl. A. Nos. 1165-1168 OF 2016@ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 8149-8152 of 2016
1. Leave granted.
2. In these appeals, by special leave, the order dated 28.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application Nos. 4357 and 4951 of 2016 respectively preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of investigation is called in question. We do not intend to state anything with regard to the history of litigation. Suffice it to state, certain directions were issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in a petition and when the said was challenged in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4703 of 2016 this Court on 29.06.2016 after reproducing few paragraphs from the order of the High Court had directed as follows:-
“Regard being had to the narrow compass in which the grievance rests, we clarify that the aforesaid paragraphs are not to be treated as directions under Article 226 of the Constitution and if any F.I.R. is registered, the investigating agency shall proceed in accordance with law. If the petitioner is grieved with the same, he may approach the appropriate court which shall deal with the matter in accordance with law. Needless to say, when the matter would be dealt with by the appropriate court, it will be done independently without being influenced by any of the observation made in the impugned order. We may hasten to clarify that except our clarificatory observation, nothing shall be construed as an expression on merits of the case.”
3. As the factual matrix would show, after the report was filed, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the investigation into case ICR No. 90 of 2016 was registered with Khatodara Police Station under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IP”) and Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. On a perusal of the order passed by the High Court, it is manifest that it did not really advert to the merits of the case within the guidelines laid down by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court to decide the lis within the parameters of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Liberty is granted to the appellants to move an application for stay of investigation, if so advised. Needless to say the High Court shall address to the prayer made in the interim application without being influenced by any of the orders passed by this Court including the present order. If an application of stay is moved, the High Court is requested to dispose of the same within ten days.
5. The High Court is requested to dispose of the petitions pending before it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. within four months hence.
6. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8467 of 2016
7. In view of the judgment passed in Crl. A. Nos. 1164 and 1165-1168 of 2016, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this special leave petition and it is disposed of accordingly.
In Crl. A. No. 1169 OF 2016 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 8967 of 2016
8. Leave granted.
9. The present appeal by special leave calls in question the legal propriety of the order dated 4th October, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Crl. Misc. Application No. 16731 of 2016 preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of the FIR. Needless to say the orders and directions passed in Crl. A. No. 1164 of 2016 shall apply in full force to the present case also.
10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The Impugned Order is set aside and the High Court is requested to decide the matter afresh in view of the law laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case (supra). The High Court Shall decide the main petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8105/2016
Dinesh Chandubhai Patel _____________________________ Petitioner
v.
State of Gujarat and Anr ___________________________ Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 8467/2016
SLP(Crl) No. 8149-8152/2016
SLP(Crl) No. 8967/2016
Date : 29/11/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
(Before Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy, JJ.)
For the parties: Mr. Yalin Oza, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P.B. Majmudar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Adv.
Mr. Apuirva Kapadiya, Adv.
Mr. Yashashvi Virendra, Adv.
Ms. D. Malkan, Adv.
Mr. Harin Raval, Sr. Adv.
Mr. A. Munshi, Adv.
Mr. Pradhuman Gohil, Adv.
Mr. Vikash Singh, Adv.
Ms. Taruna Singh Gohil, Adv.
Ms. J.S. Jadeja, Adv.
Ms. Himanshu Choubey, Adv.
Ms. Divya Anand, Adv.
Mr. Anado Mukherji, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Paul, Adv.
Ms. Diksha Jhingan, Adv.
Ms. Hemkantika Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv.
Mr. Aagam Kaur, Adv.
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. E.C. Agrawal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
In Crl. A. No. 1164 OF 2016@ SLP(Crl.) No. 8105 of 2016 and
In Crl. A. Nos. 1165-1168 OF 2016@ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 8149-8152 of 2016
11. Leave granted.
12. Appeals disposed of.
In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8467 of 2016
13. In view of the judgment passed in Crl. A. Nos. 1164 and 1165-1168 of 2016, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this special leave petition and it is disposed of accordingly.
14. In Crl. A. No. 1169 OF 2016 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 8967 of 2016
15. Leave granted.
16. Appeal is disposed of. The Impugned order is set aside.
———
