Point of Law: Corruption-The corruption at any level by any person of any magnitude is condemnable which cannot be ignored by the judicial officer.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of respondent-State.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short “the Code”) seeking issuance of necessary appropriate write, order or direction to the respondents No. 1 to 3 to take appropriate action and hold an inquiry, investigation in connection with the threats given to the applicant by the then Investigating Officer – respondent No.5 M.G. Chauhan, Police Sub-Inspector, Mahesana Taluka Police Station and respondent No.5 – Dinesh, Officer of DSP Squad, Mahesana, in connection with FIR bearing C.R. No. I – 57 of 2018 registered with Mahesana Taluka Police Station on dated 05.04.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 427, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

3. Mr. Mahesh Bhavsar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant seeks personal protection, inquiry and investigation against the respondents no.5 and 6 for having demanded money in view of illegal gratification from the applicant. Learned advocate Mr. Bhavsar stated that Niyatiben, cousin sister of the present applicant had a family dispute with her husband, and alongwith Niyatiben, the applicant had gone to Umiya Plywood Industries at Mahesana on 03.04.2018 for the purpose of compromise. He proposed to file an FIR at “B” Division Police Station, Mahesana, but since the police had found a family dispute, asked him to settle the dispute, and therefore, he left the police station alongwith Niyatiben.

3.1 Mr. Bhavsar, learned advocate submitted that owing to the cruelty meted out by the husband and in-laws of Niyatiben, she tried to consume extra-dose of medicines on 05.04.2018 at Visnagar, and due to that, she became unconscious and was hospitalised and thereafter an FIR being C.R. No. I – 20 of 2018 was registered against her husband and in-laws at Visnagar City Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498(a), 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code on 06.04.2018.

3.2 It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Bhavsar that, as a counter-blast of the incident dated 05.04.2018, the husband of Niyatiben, Deepak Mavjibjhai Patel had given false and concocted information of the incident which had taken place on 03.04.2018 and completely false FIR being C.R. No. I – 57 of 2018 came to be lodged at Mahesana Taluka Police Station.

3.3 Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that in fact the applicant himself was beaten on 03.04.2018 at Umiya Plywood Industries for which FIR was not registered by Mahesana “B” Division Police Station inspite of the fact that the whole incident was recorded in CCTV camera of Umiya Plywood Industries and the CCTV footage were also not recovered by the police, and therefore, it shows that there is deliberate act on the part of the police in not registering the FIR of the incident in question.

3.4 Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that, after a period of one month for the purpose of compromise and settlement, the respondents No.5 and 6 have extracted Rs.50,000/- from the applicant. It is stated that the said amount was paid by one Jaysinh Rana, on behalf of the present applicant. Thereafter on 07.08.2018 the respondent No.5 had called the applicant at Motera Hotel, where Jaysinh Rana, the driver of the applicant and Gautam Vyas, social worker met respondent No.5 and then again the demand of Rs.1.00 lakh was made by him. It is stated that the respondent No.5 had again visited Gandhinagar in the month of September-October, 2018, and in the parking of District Court, Gandhinagar, the respondent No.5 made a demand of Rs.1.00 lakh, and to corroborate the said fact, he has produced C.D. of video clip of the incident in question which shows that the meeting and presence of respondent No.5 with Sanjaybhai Patel. Learned advocate for the a