2004 Supreme(Guj) 512

2005 (2) GCD 1250 (Guj)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Kapadia
Yashwant Venilal Sanghvi
Versus
Sahdevsinh Dilubha Zala
Special Criminal Application No 666 of 2004
Decided on 16/08/2004

Headnote:(a) [Indian] Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) — Sections 295-A, 505, 120-B & 114 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) — Section 196 — FIRs — Registration of — Various police stations — Quashing of — Scope — On fair reading of the statements made in patrika “Jagrut Parivar” there is no manner of doubt that offences alleged in FIRs have been prima facie made out — Since, authorship of printing and publication of the offending Patrika is disowned by the petitioners, same is required to be investigated into by investigating agency — It is also clear that previous sanction under Section 196 of the Code of 1973 is not required at the initial stage of investigation — Sanction is required at the time Court takes cognizance — Therefore, investigation must be permitted to reach to it’s logical end and petitions deserves to be rejected.

       This Court is of the considered opinion that since the authorship, printing and publication of the offending patrika Jagrut Parivar is disowned by the petitioners, it is required to be investigated into by the investigating agency and on fair reading of the statements made in the patrika, there is no manner of doubt that offence as provided in Sections 295-A and 505(1)(c) has been prima facie made out. It is also clear that previous sanction under Section 196 of the Code does not require at the initial stage, i.e., at the time of investigation. The investigation must be permitted to reach to its logical end and, therefore, all these petitions deserve to be rejected. [Para 80]

       (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) — Investigation — FIRs — Publication of same offending Patrika — Lodged in different Districts — Accused almost common — Assigning investigation to common centralised agency — Scope and propriety of — In the facts though complainants are different and according to whom cause of action accrued at their respective places it shall be in fitness of things if they all are investigated by State CID Crime — So that any possibility of contradictory views and conclusion with regard investigation can be eliminated — Such direction is given only in the case more particularly when there are no allegations against the Investigating Officers and it shall not be treated as a binding precedent in all other cases.

       In the instant case, FIR has been lodged at various police stations of different Districts of Gujarat State in connection with the same patrika allegedly published by the petitioners. The accused are almost common. Of course, the complainants are different, according to whom cause of action accrued at their respective places mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, according to this Court, instead of investigating all these FIRs lodged at different police stations of various talukas of different Districts of Gujarat State by the local agency, if it is investigated by State CID Crime, Gandhinagar, there cannot be any possibility of contradictory views and conclusions with regard to investigation into the FIRs lodged at various police stations of different Districts of Gujarat State. It may happen that local police agency at different talukas may come to contradictory conclusions with regard to the investigation into all the FIRs which may lead to a chaotic situation. Therefore, it is desirable and in the fitness of things and also in the interest of justice that the investigation be conducted by a common agency which according to this Court would be State CID Crime, Gandhinagar which is expected to investigate the complaints very promptly. It may be made clear that these directions shall be considered as a special case more particularly when there are no allegations against the investigating officers dealing with the said FIRs and shall not be treated as a binding precedent in all other cases. [Para 86]

       (c) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) — Investigation — Quashing of — Scope — The petitioner have alleged against respondent No. 2 that if her invisible hands behind filing of these complaints — Except this bald statement there is no corroborative evidence which can lead to the conclusion that she is behind filing of these complaints — She being head of Swadhyaya Parivar, her name appears to have been dragged into these proceedings and her name is mentioned at various places in petitions — Therefore, her name deserves to be deleted from petitions — Court passed order accordingly.

       The petitioners have alleged against respondent No. 2 that it is her invisible hands behind filing of these complaints. According to this Court, except the bald statement made by the petitioners against her, there is no corroborative evidence which can lead to the conclusion that she is behind filing of these complaints. It is true that after demise of Pandurang Shastri Athavle she is the head of Swadhyaya Parivar and therefore naturally disciples and followers of Swadhyaya Parivar feel that the contents of the offending patrika are nothing but outrageous and an insult to their religious feelings as well as defamatory. Respondent No. 2 is the head of Swadhyaya Parivar and, therefore, naturally the complainants must have got very high esteem and regard for her. That does not mean that she has provoked the complainants to file these complaints. In aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent No. 2 has been wrongly dragged into these proceedings and her name is mentioned at various places in the petitions. That itself is suggestive of the fact that the petitioners have grudge against her as she has been declared as the head of Swadhyaya Parivar. This Court deprecate such type of practice of impleading a person against whom no relief is claimed by making reckless allegations against her. Therefore, her name deserves to be deleted from the petitions. [Para 87]

       Petition Decided Accordingly