IMPORTANT POINT
Non-cognizable offences under the IPC require a complaint from an aggrieved person for cognizance, prohibiting police from registering FIRs in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) as also under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the FIR registered as C.R. No. 11191041200772 of 2020 registered with Shaherkotda Police station, Ahmedabad City, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 501, 500 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) as also under Sections 112 and 117 of the Gujarat Police Act, filed by respondent No.2 herein, who is Unarmed Head Constable of Shaherkotda Police station, Ahmedabad City.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1 Respondent No. 2 herein - Unarmed Head Constable Bharatkumar Kalidas, on 27.07.2020, registered First Information against the applicant for the aforesaid offences stating therein that, while he was present in the Office in Surveillance Squad, he came to know that the applicant – Joint Secretary of Communist Party of India, pasted certain posters at different places stating therein that, in Shaherkotda area, there are several liquor dens, under the blessings of Police Inspector Shri V.D. Vala and one Ramsinh and Vijay Hiralal, who is working in Homeguard, are going on.

2.2 Therefore, information got verified and it was found that in the Police station area at different places, on different electrical poles, such banners were pasted depicting the aforesaid statement. In the said banner/poster, youth of the area requested to raise their voice against Police and their dictatorship.

2.3 It is further stated in the banner/poster that certain food-stalls/houses were permitted to remain open even during lockdown period and restricted unlock – II, whereas they compelled to obey lockdown and restricted unlock over the general public. In the said banner/poster, mobile number was given under the name of present applicant as Joint Secretary of Communist Party of India.

2.4 Therefore, respondent No. 2 herein – Bharatkumar Kalidas, Unarmed Head Constable of Shaherkotda Police station, Ahmedabad City, gave the aforesaid First Information Report.

3. Mr. A.R. Kadri, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that since the applicant has raised voice against the Police through the aforesaid banner/poster, he has been not only threatened but also asked to face the consequence of his involvement in any case and thereby, ultimately to undergo preventive detention. As such, applicant, as claimed in the application, is in the business of flower for earning his livelihood. At the same time, he is also a social worker and RTI activist for many decades serving people of his area and surroundings.

3.1 Mr. A.R. Kadri, learned advocate for the applicant, further submitted that since offences mentioned in the aforesaid First Information Report are non-cognizable, respondent No. 2 herein - Unarmed Head Constable, who is supposed to know the law, could not have given aforesaid First Information Report for the non-cognizable offence. Not only he gave it and Police Station Officer – Surendrasinh Ratansinh Vaghela, again Head Constable of that very Police station, has registered the same.

3.2 Person, who gave that first information, and person, who recorded it as a First Information Report, both are serving in the Police Department since long and should be aware that no First Information Report could have been filed or even registered by them. It cannot be presumed that they do not know the law prohibiting the said action.

3.3 He has further submitted that, apart from it, as reflected from the First Information Report itself, if at all the assertion therein are defamatory to the persons aggrieved i.e. Police Inspector V.D. Vala, one Ramsinh and Vijay Hiralal, they can at best file a complaint before the competent Court and none else could have filed the same.

3.4 Drawing attention of the Court to Section 199 of “the Code”, it is submitted that cognizance of offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the “I