The main legal point established is the mandatory registration of FIR if the information discloses a cognizable offence and the need for a preliminary inquiry in certain cases. The court emphasized the principle that the judicial process should not be an instrument of suppression or needless harassment.

JUDGMENT :

SAMIR J. DAVE, J.

1. By preferring present application, applicant has requested to quash and set aside order dated 05.07.2021 passed by learned 16th Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1074 of 2017 and to allow the application bearing Criminal Misc. Application No. 1074 of 2017 filed by the applicant before the learned 16th Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Surat.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that lands bearing revenue survey nos. 179, 180 and 229 of village Katargam, Surat were owned and occupied by the father of present applicant. After death of her father, the accused persons got a revenue entry no. 8219 mutated in the revenue record by creating forged documents and specifically an agreement dated 18.03.1993 in the name of present applicant by putting forged signatures of the applicant to show that the applicant has waived her rights from such lands and also made a false and bogus statement before the revenue authority and thereby, name of applicant came to be deleted from the revenue record of such lands. By way of such act, the accused has committed offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the applicant filed written complaint before the Police Commissioner as well as Katargam Police Station. However, the police authority did not register the complaint as an FIR and rejected the complaint of the applicant by holding that nothing is required to be done as a civil suit was pending. Thereafter, the applicant obtained detailed inquiry report under the RTI, where she came to know that the forged document created by the accused persons, has not been recovered by the police. During the inquiry, one of the proposed accused viz. Maheshbhai Chhaganbhai stated before the police that he will produce copy of disputed document, but thereafter, neither he produced such document nor the police has demanded such document from such accused. Thereafter, by letter dated 04.04.2015, the relevant documents of revenue entry no. 8219 from the Mamlatdar, Choryashi, Surat, however, it was only a formality of writing a letter and police has not taken pain to obtain such record. The Investigating Officer has recorded in his report dated 25.10.2015 that present applicant has also executed another document dated 18.03.2009 on a stamp paper of Rs. 20/- to waive her rights from the lands of her father. However, the applicant has never executed any such document in the year 2009 on a stamp paper of Rs. 20/-. However, the police has not recovered any document during the investigation. Therefore, the applicant has approached the Court of learned Magistrate, Surat by way of an application bearing Criminal Misc. Application No. 1074 of 2017 for the direction to the Police Inspector, Katargam Police Station to register the complaint of the applicant. The said application came to be rejected by the learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Surat by an order dated 31.01.2019 holding that the prayer prayed for by the present applicant is not required to be granted. Thereafter, the said order came to be challenged before this Court by way of Criminal Revision Application No. 1134 of 2019 and vide order dated 11.02.2021 this Court has quashed order dated 31.10.2019 and the matter was remanded back to the Court of learned Magistrate to consider it afresh. Thereafter, Criminal Misc. Application No. 1074 of 2017 was again heard by the learned Magistrate. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for both the parties, the learned Trial Court rejected the application of the applicant vide impugned order. Hence, this Criminal Revision Application is filed.

3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kavina appearing with learned advocate Mr. Dipal Patel for the applicant states that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by