A Magistrate must apply judicial mind and provide reasons before directing police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC; failure to do so renders the order unsustainable.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. These three petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) are filed challenging the legal validity of the impugned order dated 01.10.2019 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gir Somnath at Veraval passed in Criminal Inquiry No. 27 of 2019 directing the Superintendent of Police (S.P.) to register an FIR against the petitioners and to investigate the case and to submit the report.

2. The petitioners in these three petitions are the accused in the said crime. The Special Criminal Application No. 9542 of 2019 was filed by the accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.) and the S.P., respectively, Special Criminal Application No. 9297 of 2019 was filed by the accused No. 1, who is the Police Inspector and the Special Criminal Application No. 9238 of 2019 was filed by the accused Nos. 4 to 6, who are the private persons. Therefore, all these three petitions are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mitesh Amin, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the second respondent – complainant.

4. Concise statement of facts leading to the lis in these petitions, relevant to dispose of the petitions may be stated as follows:

4.1 The second respondent, who is the complainant before the learned Magistrate is the owner of a shopping complex along with his family members. Accused Nos. 4 to 6 also own a shopping complex, which is situate behind the shopping complex of the complainant. When the accused Nos. 4 to 6 were constructing a wall on the boundary of their property, the same was objected by the complainant and his family members. It is stated that the complainant and two others have demolished the said wall. Therefore, the accused No. 4 lodged a report with the police and it was registered as an FIR being II-C.R. No. 58 of 2016 with Veraval Police Station, District: Gir Somnath on 20.06.2016 against the complainant and two others for the offences punishable under Section 352, 504, 506(2), 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

4.2 However, the dispute relating to the said construction of wall persisted. Therefore, accused Nos. 4 to 6 have made a written request to accused No. 1, who is the Police Inspector to provide police protection to them at the disputed site, where the wall is being constructed. Accused No. 1 has forwarded the same to the Dy.S.P., who is accused No. 2 and he in turn, forwarded the same to accused No. 3, who is the S.P. The S.P., who is competent to grant the police aid, has by an order dated 03.01.2018 directed the concerned police officer to provide police protection to accused Nos. 4 to 6.

4.3 The complainant has challenged the said order of the S.P. – accused No. 3 in granting police aid before this Court by way of filing a writ application being Special Criminal Application No.

1902 of 2019. It was challenged on the ground that no such police protection can be granted by the police in respect of a civil dispute relating to a wall being constructed at the boundary of the property of both the parties and that the police cannot interfere in a civil dispute. This Court has disposed of the said petition by an order dated 15.03.2019. The Court held that the work of construction is over and at no stage, the petitioner (complainant herein) has attempted to stop the same or to move the competent Civil Court for the purpose of restraining the authority concerned. Further, held that, therefore, any grievance with regard to the grant of police force or for illegal construction could be challenged by preferring a civil suit or by lodgement of a private complaint if the petitioner so chooses. F