Introduction:
The Gujarat High Court recently addressed a petition filed by a woman seeking the lodging of an FIR against BJP MLA Gajendrasinh Udesinh Parmar of Prantij constituency on allegations of rape. The court was informed that the State Police had registered an FIR under Sections 376(1) (punishment for rape) and 506(1) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Justice Niral Mehta, while disposing of the plea, emphasized the necessity for an impartial investigation to uncover the truth without fear or favouritism.
Arguments by the Petitioner:
The petitioner, represented by her counsel, sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to register an FIR against Parmar. The plea referenced the Supreme Court judgments in Lalitakumari vs State of U.P. and Sakiri Vasu vs State of U.P., which mandate prompt action in cases involving serious allegations such as rape.
The petitioner alleged that despite her earlier complaint in 2021, the police conducted a preliminary inquiry instead of filing an FIR, delaying justice and violating legal principles. The petitioner’s counsel urged the court to ensure that the guidelines laid down in the aforementioned cases were strictly followed. Additionally, the petitioner sought police protection, highlighting potential threats to her safety due to the accused’s political influence.
Arguments by the Respondents:
The Additional Advocate General (AAG), representing the State, informed the court that an FIR had been registered on October 19, 2023, following the petitioner’s allegations. The AAG clarified that the delay in filing the FIR was due to the preliminary inquiry conducted to verify the claims. However, he assured the court that the FIR was now lodged based on the petitioner’s first version disclosed in her 2021 application.
The AAG also stated that all necessary steps would be taken to investigate the matter thoroughly and impartially. He emphasized that the inquiry conducted before the registration of the FIR had no legal bearing on the ongoing investigation.
Court’s Observations and Judgment:
Justice Niral Mehta noted that the petitioner’s grievance had been addressed with the registration of the FIR. While disposing of the plea, the court underscored its expectation that the Investigating Agency would investigate without fear or favouritism. The court remarked that the inquiry conducted before lodging the FIR lacked legal sanctity and should not influence the investigation process.
Justice Mehta observed that the allegations of rape necessitate urgent and impartial action, as emphasized in earlier hearings where the court questioned the State for not registering an FIR promptly. The court reiterated the significance of adhering to the principles established in Lalitakumari and Sakiri Vasu, which outline the procedure for handling serious criminal allegations.
The court also appreciated the State’s voluntary statement to lodge an FIR based on the petitioner’s claims and ensure justice was served. While the proceedings were concluded, the court reiterated the importance of transparency and impartiality in the investigation to bring the truthto light.