Facts
The petitioner filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Junagadh, alleging that police personnel manhandled and racially abused him while in custody at Junagadh ‘C’ Division Police Station in connection with FIR CR. No. 67 of 2020.
Source reference: p. 2The learned Magistrate stayed the proceedings, called for a report under Section 210 Cr.P.C., and subsequently ordered an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
Source reference: p. 2Upon receiving the inquiry report, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. on 09.11.2023.
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner’s revision application was dismissed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge on 14.02.2024.
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking to quash these orders and initiate a de novo inquiry.
Source reference: p. 1-2Issues
1. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner’s complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. was legally sustainable given the allegations of custodial torture.
Source reference: p. 32. Whether the medical evidence and witness statements sufficiently established a prima facie case to proceed with the criminal inquiry.
Source reference: p. 3-4Law Applied
Section 202 regarding the postponement of issue of process for inquiry and Section 203 regarding the dismissal of a complaint if no sufficient ground for proceeding exists.
Source reference: p. 2Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the protection of fundamental rights against custodial ill-treatment.
Source reference: p. 1Reasoning
The Court observed that the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest, at which time he explicitly stated he had no complaints against the police.
Source reference: p. 3During the production and subsequent remand and bail hearings, the petitioner was represented by an advocate, yet failed to mention any ill-treatment or threats.
Source reference: p. 4Regarding the medical evidence, the Court noted these papers were not produced before the lower courts and revealed a discrepancy in timing: the petitioner was in custody from 10.11.2022 to 11.11.2022, but was only admitted to the hospital on 13.11.2022.
Source reference: p. 4-5The Court reasoned that if the injuries were as severe as alleged, they would have been visible to the Magistrate during production and would have required immediate hospitalization rather than a two-day delay.
Source reference: p. 5The Court found the allegations to be an afterthought that did not inspire confidence.
Source reference: p. 4-5Holding
The Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and answered the issues in the negative.
The High Court dismissed the Special Criminal Application, thereby upholding the orders of the JMFC and the Sessions Court.
Source reference: p. 5Original Court PDF
JETHABHAI THOBHANBHAI KATARAvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in