Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar, filed a Special Criminal Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 482 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking multiple reliefs. The primary reliefs included a direction to the police respondents to place on record the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary as per the directions in sub-paras (ii), (vii), and (viii) of paragraph 111 of the Supreme Court judgment in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1, and to take action under Section 166A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Additionally, the petitioner sought a reference to the Supreme Court for contempt of court against the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Surat, Mr. P.B. Patel, who had passed an order dated 30.06.2023 in CrMA J/2/2023, which the petitioner alleged was contrary to the law laid down in Lalita Kumari. The petitioner also prayed for sending the magistrate for training. The High Court examined the submissions and the material on record. The Court noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated any specific violation of the directions in Lalita Kumari. The police had already taken appropriate action in the matter. Regarding the magistrate's order, the Court found that the order was not perverse and that the magistrate had correctly applied the legal principles. The Court held that the petitioner failed to make out a case for issuance of any writ or direction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The Court also rejected the prayer for reference to the Supreme Court for contempt, as there was no basis for such a reference. The judgment was pronounced on 03.02.2026 by Justice M.R. Mengdey.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Registration of FIR - Preliminary Inquiry - Directions in Lalita Kumari - The petitioner sought direction to police to place on record General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary as per sub-paras (ii), (vii), (viii) of para 111 of (2014) 2 SCC 1 and to take action under Section 166A IPC. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any specific violation of the directions and that the police had already taken appropriate action. (Paras 1-5) B) Contempt of Court - Judicial Magistrate - Perverse Order - The petitioner alleged that the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Surat passed an order dated 30.06.2023 in CrMA J/2/2023 which was contrary to the law laid down in Lalita Kumari. The Court found that the order was not perverse and that the magistrate had correctly applied the law. The prayer for reference to the Supreme Court for contempt was rejected. (Paras 6-10) C) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Scope of Writ Jurisdiction - The Court reiterated that the High Court under Article 226 can only issue directions to enforce fundamental rights or for any other purpose, and that the petitioner must establish a clear legal right. The petition was dismissed as lacking merit. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the police respondents failed to comply with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. regarding maintenance of General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary and whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate committed contempt by passing an order allegedly contrary to those directions.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of the directions in Lalita Kumari and that the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order was not perverse. The prayer for reference to the Supreme Court for contempt was rejected.
Law Points
- Article 226
- Article 227
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 401 CrPC
- Section 166A IPC
- Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1
- General Diary
- Station Diary
- Daily Diary
- preliminary inquiry
- registration of FIR
- contempt of court
- judicial magistrate
- perverse order
