Gujarat HC Rejects Amul Employee’s Plea for Independent Probe Into Assault Complaint Against GCMMF MD, Leaves Magistrate Route Open

The petitioner alleged that, on 28 May 2025, GCMMF’s Managing Director and other employees assaulted her at work, forcibly took her mobile phone, and that the police thereafter failed to register an FIR and mistreated her.

She complained to the police and other authorities and sought preservation of CCTV footage.

The police investigation concluded that no cognizable offence was made out; the petitioner challenged the investigating officer’s report dated 2 April 2026 and the communication dated 27 April 2026, seeking their quashing and transfer of the investigation to an independent agency outside Anand District.

The petitioner also relied on medical evidence and alleged bias and procedural irregularities in the investigation; the State maintained that the police had independently considered the CCTV footage, medical certificate and witness statements.

Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution protect the right to a fair investigation, while Article 226 jurisdiction is discretionary and ordinarily should not be invoked where an efficacious alternative remedy exists.

Under Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, an aggrieved complainant may seek appropriate directions for registration or proper investigation from the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; the Magistrate may monitor the investigation but cannot investigate it personally.

Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277, and M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, (2020) 16 SCC 728, reiterate that complainants should ordinarily pursue that statutory remedy rather than approach the High Court in the first instance.

Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 798, restates the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction and the ordinary rule against bypassing an available statutory remedy, subject to recognised exceptions such as enforcement of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to legislative vires.

A direction for investigation by an independent agency is exceptional and should not be ordered routinely.

The Court considered the petitioner’s allegations alongside the medical report, CCTV material, witness statements, the ICC report and material concerning the police’s handling of the matter.

It noted that the medical report recorded no history of assault or observable injury, and that the CCTV footage showed the Managing Director holding the petitioner’s wrist while her phone was taken, but did not depict the alleged inappropriate touching; the recorded witness statements did not support her account.

On the material before it, the Court found no basis to invoke an exception to the alternative-remedy rule or to order an independent or de novo investigation.

It left the merits of any application before the Magistrate open.

It reserved liberty to the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy available in accordance with law and clarified that its observations would not prejudice that remedy.