Complaint Already Filed Against Police Officer: Gujarat High Court Declines Contempt Action Over Failure To Register Rape FIR
The Gujarat High Court recently declined to entertain a contempt petition against a Police Inspector for allegedly failing to comply with the Apex Court's decision in Lalita Kumar v/s State of UP, for prompt registration of FIR on receipt of information regarding cognizable offence.A bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed:"Having found a...
The Gujarat High Court recently declined to entertain a contempt petition against a Police Inspector for allegedly failing to comply with the Apex Court's decision in Lalita Kumar v/s State of UP, for prompt registration of FIR on receipt of information regarding cognizable offence.
A bench of Chief Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Ashutosh Shastri observed:
"Having found a substantive compliant has been lodged not only against the respondent, but also against the Police Officer who was incharge and one another co-accused and as such, it appears that the grievance of the applicant is taken care of by initiating steps by filing substantive complaint and as such, the applicant has not remained remediless."
It added, "She can either file a criminal prosecution or take appropriate measures permissible under the law and one of the measure is already set in motion in the form of complaint having already been filed against the accused persons, as such we deem it proper not to exercise our jurisdiction in favour of the applicant."
The Applicant herein had approached the High Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging that an accused person (Respondent) had committed rape on her but despite her complaint, the police did not believe her and did not note her complaint. The Applicant, therefore, wanted appropriate action against the erring officers including the instant Respondent.
The AGP opposed the plea, stating that the Applicant had concocted the story with some oblique motive. The main grievance pertained to the failure to the lodge the FIR and yet, no specific allegations against the particular Police Inspector were made. He was not joined a party to the current proceedings. Additionally, the offence had not taken place within the jurisdiction of the pertinent police station and consequently, no preliminary inquiry was carried out by the Police Inspector. Lastly, there were similar complaints filed by the Applicant earlier, but this was the first complaint alleging that the police inspector had failed to register the FIR.
Addressing these contentions, the High Court found that the Applicant had 'trapped' the Respondent to extort money and an FIR had been registered against the Applicant for the same.
Additionally, it appeared to the Bench that the process of inquiry had been initiated regarding the instant allegations and the Police Officer had been found prima facie responsible to some extent. The Applicant, therefore, was not remediless.
As regards the non-compliance with the Lalita Kumari judgement, the High Court found that the police authorities had indeed delayed the process of registering the complaint. Yet, now, the complaint had been registered and the grievance had been taken care of. The Bench also observed:
"At this juncture, it also appears from the record that as per the version of the applicant and her father, the applicant was taken to the guesthouse for about five times and the alleged act had been committed, but for a pretty long period, a conspicuous silence on the part of the father as well as the applicant is a matter to be examined by the appropriate authority...No normal person if so aggrieved would wait for a pretty long period."
Considering that the narrative of the Applicant was under serious doubt and that there was significant delay in filing the instant application backed with the fact that the Applicant was not remediless, the High Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings. However, it was clarified that the Applicant could approach the appropriate forums for availing remedies.
Case No.: C/MCA/567/2022
Case Title: ANJALIBEN PRAKASHBHAI TRIVEDI v/s JAYDEEPSINH K RATHOD
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 384
Click Here To Read/Download Order