Clarification of the nature of directions issued by the High Court and the independent handling of any F.I.R. registered by the appropriate court.

ORDER :

Permission to file the special leave petition is granted.

2. Heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amar Dave, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The High Court by the impugned order in paragraphs 6 to 9 has stated thus:-

“I have gone through both the reports. The reports are quite exhaustive. Prima facie, it appears that all relevant aspects relating to the matter have been looked into. The necessary and relevant documentary evidence has also been annexed with the reports. The report filed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City indicates that some prima facie case is made out against the persons named therein for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2) and 5 of the Prevention of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Atrocity) Act.

7. If the preliminary inquiry carried out by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City reveals a prima facie case as stated in the report then I expect the Commissioner to proceed further in accordance with law.

8. I clarify that I have not expressed any final opinion in this regard. It is now for the police authority to look into the same and proceed in accordance with law without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by this Court in the matter.

9. It goes without saying that all legal remedies available may be availed of by the persons concerned against whom the police may or may not take action in future in accordance with law. The two reports filed by the Police Commissioner, Surat City alongwith the documents and the report filed by the Collector, Surat along with the documents be kept in the sealed cover on the record of the case. The Registry shall preserve the two sealed covers containing the reports in accordance with the rules.”

4. It is submitted by Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the High Court has issued direction for registration of an F.I.R. under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indian and, in fact, is monitoring the matter. Mr. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has disputed the same.

5. 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 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.

6. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.