Holding

The magistrate correctly treated the application as a complaint under Section 190 CrPC, and the petitioner’s repeated petitions constitute an abuse of process, warranting dismissal.

Summary

The petitioner, Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar, alleged that builders near Surat Airport obtained No‑Objection Certificates (NOCs) from the Airport Authority of India by submitting forged documents and constructed buildings at locations deviating 42‑1600 metres from the approved sites, thereby endangering aviation safety. He claimed that the police failed to register an FIR despite his complaints disclosing cognizable offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120‑B IPC, invoking the mandatory registration rule from Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. The High Court examined whether the magistrate’s refusal to order an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC was lawful and whether the petitioner could relitigate issues already decided by the coordinate bench and the Supreme Court. The Court held that the magistrate correctly exercised his powers by treating the application as a complaint under Section 190 CrPC and that the petitioner’s repeated prayers were an abuse of process, having already been dismissed by the coordinate bench and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as frivolous and an order for costs was imposed, with a notice issued for possible contempt proceedings against the petitioner. The Court also directed that the matter be recorded and the petitioner's competency certificate be revisited.

Issues considered

The police are obligated to register an FIR when a complaint discloses a cognizable offence under Lalita Kumari.
Whether a magistrate may decline to order an investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC and treat the application as a complaint under Section 190.
Whether the petitioner can reopen issues already decided by the coordinate bench and the Supreme Court.
Whether the petitioner’s prayers constitute an abuse of process and contempt of court.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 154, s. Section 156(3), s. Section 190, s. Section 200, s. Section 397, s. Section 401, s. Section 482
Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 227
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Section 120B, s. Section 166A, s. Section 420, s. Section 467, s. Section 468, s. Section 471

Subjects

FIR registrationSection 156(3) CrPCLalita Kumari judgmentabuse of processcontempt of courtpublic safetyNOC deviationHigh Court revision

Judgment

R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

Reserved On : 16/01/2026
Pronounced On : 03/02/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 8358 of 2023

With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 2 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8358 of 2023
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 2 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 8358 of 2023

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

==========================================================
VISHWAS SUDHANSHU BHAMBURKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. HARDIK DAVE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. H.K.PATEL, APP
SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

CAV JUDGMENT

1. The Registry has provided Video Footage of hearing of this
matter which had taken place on 16.01.2026 in the Pen
drive and the same is also placed on record.

2. By filing the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India read with Sections 482 of the
Cr.P.C. and Section 401 pf Cr.P.C., the petitioner Party-in-
Person has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(A) adjudicate the questions of law raised in para 3 of the

Page 1 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

present petition.

(B) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing
the Police Respondents to place on record of this
Hon'ble Court on affidavit, the General Diary/Station
Diary/Daily Diary as directed in sub-paras (ii), (vii)
and (viii) of para 111 of (2014) 2 SCC 1, Lalita Kumari
versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.;

(C) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing
Respondent No. 1 to take action, especially under
section 166A of the Indian Penal Code as directed in
sub-para (iv) of para 111 of (2014) 2 SCC 1, Lalita
Kumari versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.;

(D) pass a reference to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
with regard to the contempt of court on the part of the
Ld Chief Judicial Magistrate (Mr.P. B. Patel) at Surat
who has passed the impugned order dated 30.06
2023 in CrMA J/2/2023

(E) pass appropriate orders to send the Ld. Chief Judicial
Magistrate (Mr. P. B. Patel) at Surat who has passed
the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 in CrMA
J/2/2023 for training since he seems unaware of the
law of the land, is not only not up to date with
judgments which are over 13 years old, but also
displays the propensity to misread and misinterpret
the directions of none less than the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India,

Page 2 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

(F) quash and set aside the impugned order dated
30.06.2023 passed by the Ld. Chief Judicial
Magistrate at Surat in CrMA J/2/2023;

(G) issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Police
Respondents herein to immediately lodge an F.I.R. as
contemplated under Section 154 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 and reiterated and settled vide para
111(i) of (2014 2 SCC 1, Lalit Kumari versus State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others by way of interim relief;

(G)(i) pending final outcome of the present petition,
proceedings in Cr.M.A. No.J/2/2023 before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Surat may kindly
be stayed in the interest of justice by way of interim
relief.

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to filing the
present petition are such that the Airport Authority of India
had granted NOC for construction of buildings for the
areas nearing the Surat Airport. Upon verification it was
found that the construction put up on the sites on the
basis of the NOC granted by Airport Authority of India had
deviated from the site mentioned in the NOC and such
deviation was ranging from42 meters to 1600 meters. The
PIL being Writ Petition No.633 of 2019 has been filed by
the petitioner before this Court and the same is still
pending.

Page 3 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

4. The petitioner herein approached Dumas Police Station of
Surat City by filing an application no.33 of 2021 on
11.04.2021. The said application was ordered to be filed
since cognizable offence was not disclosed. The petitioner
thereafter approached the Commissioner of Police, Surat
City by filing application under Section 154(3) of the
Cr.P.C.. The said application was also ordered to be filed
for the foregoing reasons. Thereafter, the petitioner
approached this Court by filing Special Criminal
Application No.5144 of 2021 praying for the following
reliefs:-

"(B) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing
the police respondents to place on record of this
Hon'ble Court on affidavit, the General Diary /Station
Diary /Daily diary as directed in Sub-paras (ii), (vii)
and (viii) of para 111 (1) of (2014) 2 SCC 1, Lalita
Kumari Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

(C) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing
respondent No 1 to take action, especially under
section 166A of the Indian Penal Code as directed in
sub-para (iv) of para 111 of) of (2014) 2 SCC 1, Lalita
Kumari Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

(D) Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the police
respondents herein to immediately lodge an F.I.R. as
contemplated under Section 154 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 as settled vide para 111(i) of

Page 4 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

2014(2) SCC 1 of Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors.

5. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
19.09.2022 was pleased to dispose of the said petition by
relegating the petitioner Party-in-Person to take recourse
alternative remedy available to him by filing appropriate
application before the learned Magistrate. The said order
was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Apex
Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.10419
of 2022. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated
09.12.2022, disposed the said petition by observing that
“Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned
order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the High Court of
Gujarat, Ahmedabad.” Thereafter, the petitioner
approached the Court of learned Magistrate at Surat by
filing Criminal Misc. Application No.2 of 2023 under
Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.. learned Magistrate vide order
dated 30.06.2023 observed that the complainant has not
satisfied this Court to pass order under Section 156(3) of
the Cr.P.C. and therefore, declined to refer the complaint
for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C..
However, the learned Magistrate thought it fit to examine
the complainant in view of the provisions of Section 200 of
the Cr.P.C. and had summoned the petitioner herein to
remain present before him. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the order passed by learned Magistrate,
the petitioner is before this Court by filing present petition.

6. The petitioner Party-in-Person submitted that the present

Page 5 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

petition arises from the failure of the police authorities to
register an F.I.R. despite clear disclosure of cognizable
offences in his complaint dated 14.01.2020 addressed to
the Commissioner of Police, Surat. The complaint alleges
that several builders obtained No Objection Certificates
from the Airports Authority of India by submitting forged
and fabricated documents relating to the location and
coordinates of the proposed buildings, and thereafter,
constructed buildings at locations substantially different
from those approved, thereby committing offences
punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B
of the IPC. The NOCs themselves stipulate that any
deviation in location renders the permission void, and
documents on record show lateral deviations ranging from
43 meters to 1609 meters in multiple building complexes.

6.1 It is submitted that the petitioner duly complied with
Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. by approaching
senior police officials when the F.I.R. was not registered.
Reliance is placed on the Constitution Bench judgment in
Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. to contend that registration of
F.I.R. is mandatory once information discloses commission
of a cognizable offence and that no preliminary inquiry into
veracity is permissible. Despite this, the police neither
registered an F.I.R. nor acted in accordance with law, even
though their internal communications and the closure
report themselves acknowledge disclosure of cognizable
offences. He submitted that “I am sorry to say but the
general opinion is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Page 6 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

passes orders which it is unable to get executed.”

6.2 The petitioner Party-in-Person further submitted that the
police fabricated records and conducted an impermissible
inquiry without registration of F.I.R., as reflected from
discrepancies in outward numbers and dates of official
communications and from internal correspondence
referring to “inquiry” and “investigation” without an F.I.R..
It is contended that such actions amount to burking of
offences in defiance of settled law.

6.3 The petitioner pointed out that this Court, in an earlier
order in Special Criminal Application No.5144 of 2021,
recorded that the complaint disclosed commission of
cognizable offences, yet the petitioner was relegated to the
remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. He then raised a
question that in such cases can the judges be
permitted to continue the injustice being inflicted
upon the citizen under the cover of alternate remedy?
However, pursuant to the order of this court, the petitioner
approached the learned Magistrate relying upon XYZ v.
State of M.P., Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe v. Hemant
Yashwant Dhage, wherein the Supreme Court held that
once a Magistrate finds prima facie disclosure of cognizable
offences and necessity of police investigation, an order
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must follow. However, the
application was rejected by learned magistrate on the
ground that the Airports Authority of India had not lodged
any complaint, which according to the petitioner is
contrary to the law laid down in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas

Page 7 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

Nayak that any person can set criminal law in motion.

6.4 It is further submitted that documentary material placed
on record, including survey maps and communications of
the Airports Authority of India, conclusively establish that
buildings were constructed at coordinates different from
those applied for, resulting in obstruction to safe flight
operations and displacement of the runway threshold by
615 meters. Reliance is placed on judgments of the
Bombay High Court directing registration of F.I.R.s against
builders for similar misrepresentations near airports, to
contend that criminal prosecution in such matters is
neither unprecedented nor unwarranted. He further
submitted that, “it is rather distressing that while one
constitutional court shows the proactiveness to address the
issues pertaining to public safety, another constitutional
court flagrantly disregards the law thereby ensuring that
not even an FIR is lodged”.

6.5 The petitioner Party-in-Person submitted that the issue
involves serious public safety concerns and violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution, as aviation safety around
Surat Airport has been compromised due to unauthorized
constructions. It is contended that directing registration of
F.I.R. or investigation would cause no prejudice to any
party, whereas continued inaction undermines the rule of
law and public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Accordingly, the petitioner prays for appropriate directions
to ensure registration of F.I.R. and lawful investigation of
the offences disclosed.

Page 8 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

7. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave with learned
Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Himanshu Patel
appearing for the respondent State opposed the grant of
present petition inter-alia contending that the present
petition is a repetitive and successive round of litigation.
Similar prayers seeking directions for registration of an
F.I.R. were earlier made in Special Criminal Application
No.5144 of 2021, which came to be dismissed by this
Court on the ground of availability of an efficacious
alternative remedy before the Magistrate. The said order
was carried before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which
declined to interfere and permitted the petitioner to avail
remedies in accordance with law.

7.1 Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that pursuant
thereto, the petitioner Party-in-Person has already filed a
private complaint, wherein the learned Magistrate has
taken cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and the
proceedings are presently pending. In spite of the same,
the petitioner Party-in-Person has again approached this
Court with substantially identical prayers, merely adding
further prayers (D), (E) and (F), which contain unwarranted
allegations against the concerned Judicial Magistrate.

7.2 Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that it is a
basic principle that judicial orders passed by the
Magistrate cannot form the basis for contempt proceedings.
Therefore, the relief sought for in this regard is
misconceived. The petition is, therefore, nothing but an
attempt to reopen the issues already concluded and to

Page 9 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

bypass the statutory remedy already invoked by the
petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that the present
petition may be dismissed with costs.

8. Heard Party-in-Person and learned Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent State.

9. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present
petition is a classic example of the petition which is
thoroughly misconceived and an abuse of process of law.
The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order
passed by the learned Magistrate whereby his prayer for
referring the complaint for investigation under Section
156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the concerned Police Station has
been declined and learned Magistrate has thought it proper
to examine the complainant under the provisions of
Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Though the order impugned in
the present petition is amenable to revisional jurisdiction
under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has
approached this Court directly without availing alternative
remedy available to him.

10. From the record it appears that the Airport Authority of
India had granted NOC for construction of buildings
nearby Surat Airport and on the basis of NOC granted by
the Airport Authority of India and several buildings have
been constructed by the respective builders. Thereafter, the
Airport Authority of India along with local authority had
carried out joint survey and it was found that the builders
in question had tendered different WGS84 coordinates and

Page 10 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

the buildings were constructed on significantly different
WGS84 coordinates and having different site elevation than
what were applied for by builders during NOC. Thus, the
construction which was put up on the basis of NOC
granted by the Airport Authority of India was carried out
on different places than the site for which NOC was
granted by the Airport Authority of the India. The petitioner
herein had submitted an application on 12.04.2021 to the
Commissioner of police, Surat City along with the other
authorities. The main grievance raised by the petitioner in
that application was to the effect that the respective
builders had submitted forged documents with regard to
elevation of buildings and on the basis of those forged
documents; NOC was obtained from the Airport Authority
of India. Copy of this application was also forwarded to the
Station House Officer, Dumas Police Station, Surat City.
The record indicates that upon receipt of the said
application, Dumas Police Station had summoned the
petitioner on several occasions asking him to provide
cogent material supporting his allegations. However, the
petitioner instead of remaining personally present before
the concerned authorities had sent his written statement to
the concerned police authorities. The Dumas Police Station
vide Communication dated 21.04.2021 had informed the
petitioner that since no cognizable offence was found to
have been committed, the application was ordered to be
filed. Upon perusal of this communication, it appears that
the concerned police authorities had also addressed the
letters to the Airport authorities as well as Municipal

Page 11 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

Corporation asking them to inform as to whether any
forged documents were used for obtaining NOC, the police
authorities had received no replies from any of the above
authorities and therefore, it had taken a decision to file an
application submitted by the petitioner. Being aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner herein had
approached this Court by filing Special Criminal
Application No.5144 of 2021 praying for the reliefs referred
to herein above.

11. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
19.09.2022 had been pleased to dismiss the petition inter-
alia observing that the law itself recognizes that where an
F.I.R. is not registered, the aggrieved person has an option
to approach the Court under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
and under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. This order was
challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Apex Court
by filing petition referred to herein above. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in its order dated 09.12.2022 had recorded that it
found no reason to interfere with the order dated
19.09.2022 passed in Special Criminal Application
No.5144 of 2021 and thus, the same had attained finality.
Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Court of learned
Magistrate, Surat by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.2
of 2023 under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.. The learned
Magistrate in his order dated 30.06.2023 had noted that
the petitioner herein had not satisfied the Court to pass
order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. However, he
thought it appropriate to examine the complainant under

Page 12 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.. Learned Magistrate in the order
dated 30.06.2023 had observed that considering the
affidavit which was filed by the Airport Authority of India in
the PIL before this Court, there is no averment that the
builders had put forged documents and got NOC for the
building construction. Therefore, learned Magistrate found
that no cognizable offence was brought to the notice and
therefore, he did not exercise powers under Section 156(3)
of the Cr.P.C. Even during the course of hearing of the
present petition, the petitioner has miserably failed to point
out which documents were forged and produced before the
Airport Authority for obtaining the NOC. Upon perusal of
the affidavit filed by the Airport Authority of India before
this Court in PIL in Para-6 of the affidavit, it is mentioned
as under:-
It is further submitted that each of the NOC's are
based upon the representations of data and the
details by the builders themselves and the same is
noted in the Para 3 of the Issued NOC's if at any stage
it is established that the data as tendered by the
applicant is different from that of the actual site data
and in result to that the built structure will adversely
affect the Aircraft operations then the built structure or
any part thereof will be required to be demolished and
NOC being Cancelled. That in the present case,
builders in question have tendered different WGS-84
coordinates and ultimately after the joint survey being
carried out by Respondent herein and Local municipal
authority in the presence of representative of

Page 13 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

concerned building, it has come to knowledge that the
buildings are constructed on significantly different
WGS-84 coordinates and having different Site
Elevation than what were applied for by builders
during NOC application. A copy of Sample NOC is
annexed hereto and marked as "Annexure-R2".

12. Further in Para -8 of the affidavit, it is mentioned by the
Airport Authority that the NOC obtained by the builders
were wrong coordinates and site elevation provided by
them at the relevant point of time and the construction of
building has deviated from actual data provided to the
respondent complainant.

13. Thus, nowhere in the affidavit, the Airport Authority has
mentioned that any forged documents were submitted
before it by the builders for grant of NOC. From the
affidavit of the Airport Authority, it appears to be the case
that the buildings in question were constructed on the
place other then the site for which NOC was granted by the
Airport Authority of India. Therefore, learned Magistrate
was right and justified in holding that no cognizable
offence was made out from the facts narrated by the
petitioner before it. Learned Magistrate had though not
accepted the prayer of the petitioner for investigation under
Section 156(3); had decided to inquire into the complaint
under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and had summoned the
petitioner for the purpose of inquiry. The petitioner instead
of participating in the process has approached this Court
by filing present petition. It is argued by the petitioner that

Page 14 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

complaint for commission of a cognizable offence can be
lodged by any person and therefore, it was not necessary
for the Airport Authority to lodge the complaint. Petitioner
may be right in this regard but the authority could very
well have pointed out to this court in the affidavit file by it
that the NOC was obtained on the basis of forged
documents, though it was not necessary for it to lodge the
complaint.

14. It is sought to be contended by the petitioner that when he
had submitted an application under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.P.C. learned Magistrate could have either allowed the
said application or could have dismissed the application.
The learned Magistrate could not have treated the
application as a complaint. This contention raised by the
petitioner demonstrates the complete lack of legal
knowledge on the part of the petitioner Party-in-Person.
There is nothing in law which would preclude the learned
Magistrate from treating the application under Section
156(3) of the Cr.P.C. as complaint. At this stage, reference
to Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. would be necessary which
reads as under:-

“190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any
Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of
the second class specially empowered in this behalf
under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any
offence-

Page 15 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which
constitute such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;
(c) upon information received from any person other
than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that
such offence has been committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any
Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance
under sub-section (1) of such offence as are within
his competence to inquire into or try.

15. Section 190(1)(c) authorizes the Magistrate to take
cognizance of an offence upon information received from
any person other than the police officer or upon his own
knowledge. An information received on the basis of an
application filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C would
definitely fall under Section 190 (1) (c) and therefore, in the
opinion of this court, even if the Magistrate does not pass
the order for investigation under Section 156(3), the other
course of treating the application as a complaint is always
available to him. Learned Magistrate, having regard to the
facts narrated in the application by the petitioner, found it
necessary to inquire into the matter and therefore, had
passed an order to examine the complainant under Section
200 of Cr.P.C. The magistrate has committed no wrong by
treating the application submitted by the petitioner as a
complaint.

Page 16 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

16. It is also required to be noted that Prayer 9(B), 9(C) and
9(G) made in the present petition by the petitioner were
already made by him in Special Criminal Application
No.5144 of 2021, which was dismissed by this Court vide
order dated 19.09.2022 and had been confirmed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 09.12.2022.

17. Thus, the petitioner is trying to reopen the same chapter,
which has already been closed upto the Hon’ble Apex
Court. The prayer A in the present petition asks this Court
to adjudicate the question of law raised in Para-3 of the
petition. Para-3 of the petition reads as under:-

3.(A) Are the orders passed by the Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India of any consequence
whatsoever to either this Hon'ble Court, which is a
Constitutional Court, or even to the Executive?

3.(B) Should this Hon'ble Court be making efforts to see that
directions, orders and judgments, passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, including its Constitution Bench,
are followed in toto, and executed in letter and in
spirit, or should it be shooting the messenger by
deprecating his efforts to point out the lacunae?

3.(C) Instead of following final directions of the Hon'ble Apex
Court contained in para 111 of the Lalita Kumari
Judgment, can this Hon'ble Court regurgitate, re-
appreciate, review and discuss the arguments
forwarded in para 20, of the same judgment and

Page 17 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

order.

18. The questions which are raised by the petitioner Party-in-
Person in the present petition, more particularly, in Para-3
of the petition are, by their very nature, contemptuous and
are not of any significance. These issues were already
raised by the petitioner in the earlier petition and the said
petition was dismissed by this Court which also got
approved from the Apex Court.

19. Prayer -D made in the petition by the petitioner Party-in-
Person asks this Court to make a reference to the Hon’ble
Apex Court with regard to contempt of Court on the part of
the learned Magistrate, who has passed the order
impugned in the present petition.

20. As observed herein above, this Court finds the order
impugned in the present petition passed by learned
Magistrate is just and proper and in accordance with law
and is also in conformity of the settled principles of law
and therefore, the prayer in question is not required to be
granted. It is also required to be noted that the order
impugned in the present petition is a judicial order passed
by the learned Magistrate and if assumed the same order
to be incorrect in the eyes of law, the same cannot be
termed to be contempt of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The
prayer in question, therefore, is absolutely misconceived.
By prayer E, the petitioner has prayed to this Court that
the learned Magistrate, who has passed the impugned
order be sent for training since he seems unaware of law of

Page 18 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

the land, is not only up to date with the judgments, which
are over 13 years old but also displays the propensity to
misread and misinterpret the directions of none less than
the Hon’ble Apex Court. The petitioner herein appears to
have assumed advisory jurisdiction unto himself over this
Court. The petitioner while arguing the matter before this
court referred to paragraph 5 of the order of the coordinate
bench of this court in Special Criminal Application No.
5144 of 2021 and submitted that this court had found a
cognizable offence being made out. In fact, the coordinate
bench had noted the submissions of the petitioner in the
said paragraph. There is no such finding recorded in the
order. From the tenor of the present petition as well as
manner in which arguments are made by the petitioner
Party-in-Person before this Court, this Court is of the view
that the petitioner Party-in-Person is more required to be
imparted training of law and not the learned Magistrate.
The prayer in question is, therefore, thoroughly
misconceived and cannot be granted.

21. The petitioner has sought to rely upon the judgment of this
court dated 22-12-2023 delivered in Special Criminal
Application No. 13500 of 2023 in support of his arguments
wherein the coordinate bench has directed the learned
Magistrate to pass an order for investigation under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. In the facts of that case, commission of a
cognizable offence was clearly made out and therefore, this
court had passed the order in question. No such facts are
emerging from the facts of this case as discussed

Page 19 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

hereinabove.

22. The petition, therefore, fails as being frivolous,
misconceived and abuse of principal of law and therefore,
the same is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.25000
imposed upon the petitioner Party-in-Person.

23. Before parting with the present order, the conduct and
demeanor of the petitioner Party-in-Person which is
contemptuous by the very nature, is required to be taken
note of for the necessary action. In the memo of petition,
which has been affirmed by the petitioner Party-in-Person,
the following averments are made:-
Page 4:

The opinion formed in the minds of the citizens at large
is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has been
reduced to a blabbering formality with only illusions of
power and majesty, unable to get its own orders
implemented.

Page 5 & 6:
It is unfortunate that such impertinence gets
encouraged by the order of this Hon'ble Court itself in
Special Criminal Application No. 2589 of 2023, which,
in para 4agrees with the contention is raised, but
then, in the very next paragraph shoots the messenger
The dichotomy of the citizens, the sovereigns, holding
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the highest regard while the
Courts as well as the Executive denigrate it is out in

Page 20 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

the open.

3.(A) Are the orders passed by the Constitution Bench
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India of any
consequence whatsoever to either this Hon'ble Court,
which is a Constitutional Court, or even to the
Executive?

3.(B) Should this Hon'ble Court be making efforts to
see that directions, orders and judgments, passed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, including its Constitution
Bench, are followed in toto, and executed in letter and
in spirit, or should it be shooting the messenger by
deprecating his efforts to point out the lacunae?

3.(C) Instead of following final directions of the Hon'ble
Apex Court contained in para 111 of the Lalita Kumari
Judgment, can this Hon'ble Court, regurgitate, re-
appreciate, review and discuss the arguments
forwarded in para 20, of the same judgment and order

Page 16:
However, in what can only be termed as a travestv of
justice, this Hon'ble Court goes on to further record in
para 5 of the same order that,

"5. In view of above legal position, such type of
applications are unwarranted and it is nothing but
abuse of process of the Court. It amounts to burden to
the Court and the applicant here in may pursue before

Page 21 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

the Court concerned without there being any reference
to this Court."

Unfortunate as it is, it needs to be stated on record
that such impertinence gets encouraged by the
Constitutional Courts themselves with the sort of
orders passed in Special Criminal Application No 2589
of 2023.

Page 24:
5.18. Because the fact that no F.I.R. has been lodged
by the Station House Officer of Dumas Police Station
despite a complaint disclosing the commission of
cognizable offences displays in all its glory, how a
judgement of even the Constitutional Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, can be rendered
completely impotent and reduce the Hon'ble Apex
Court to a powerless, blabbering formality with only
illusions of grandeur and majesty.

Page 30:
(D) pass a reference to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India with regard to the contempt of court on the part
of the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Mr. P. B. Patel) at
Surat who has passed the impugned order dated
30.06.2023 in CrMA J/2/2023.

(E) pass appropriate orders to send the Ld. Chief
Judicial Magistrate (Mr. P. B. Patel) at Surat who has
passed the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 in CrMA

Page 22 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

J/2/2023 for training since he seems unaware of the
law of the land, is not only not up to date with
judgments which are over 13 years old, but also
displays the propensity to misread and misinterpret
the directions of none less than the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India;

24. During pendency of the present petition before this Court,
the petitioner had addressed the letter dated 19.04.2025 to
the Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Apex Court with a copy
of the said letter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court.
In the said letter, it is mentioned by the petitioner as
under:-

It is thus that I approached the High Court of Gujarat
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with
Special Criminal Application No. 5144 of 2021 on date
27.04.2021 for lodging of F.I.R. on the basis of a
complaint made by me. After almost 18 months on
19.09.2022, the matter came to be dismissed. Notably,
para 3 of the order reads, "....In such circumstances,
the party in person, filed a complaint dated
14.01.2020 addressed to Commissioner of Police,
Surat stating inter alia that, the developers
constructed building in the vicinity of Surat Airport,
submitted forged documents for obtaining NOC and
building permission, thereby, committed the offences
punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 471, 420
and 120(b) of IPC.". The Court itself points out that my

Page 23 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

complaint disclosed the commission of cognizable
offences. But it did absolutely nothing to correct the
wrong of the police not lodging F.I.R.. Instead it asked
me to approach the Magistrate under section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.. This shows not only the scant regard that
judges of even Constitutional Courts have for citizens
that they have been appointed to serve. More
distressingly, it shows their antipathy to pass orders
against the mighty State. Not to mention, additionally
this further burdens the (lower) judiciary for no reason
and makes the citizen run around some more. A copy
of the order dated 19.09.2022 passed in Special
Criminal Application No. 5144 of 2021 is annexed
hereto and is marked as Annexure - "A".

That not only has the law of the land been thrown to
the winds, but also that this is utter, brazen contempt
of (2014) 2 SCC 1 Lalita Kumari versus State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors, is of no consequence; what emerges is
that the State must be protected against the citizen at
all costs!

Since I felt this anomaly needed to be corrected, I
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10149 of 2022.
The Supreme Court too found no infirmity in the
judgment. This, in a case where not only had the law
of the land been thrown to the winds, but also that
this was an utter, brazen contempt of (2014) 2 SCC 1

Page 24 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

Lalita Kumari versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
This again only buttresses that the Courts seem loathe
to act against the State even when the law has been
violated.

I have appealed to the High Court of Gujarat against
this order vide Special Criminal Application No. 8358
of 2023, which was filed on 03.07.2023 and
registered on 05.07.2023. When it was called out for
hearing on 20.07.2023, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Samir J.
Dave was pleased to recuse himself, without
assigning reasons. Thankfully, I may add; I was not
sure of getting justice from a Judge who has quoted
the Manusmriti in the open court, even if orally without
recording it.

Also, I had in the meantime approached the Supreme
Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India by way of Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 149 of
2023. That petition too came to be dismissed in less
than 20 seconds, without I being heard even if the
order says otherwise. That a petition running into a
total of 275 pages without the Interlocutory
Applications. filed under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India comes to be dismissed without even a whiff of
the submissions made, speaks for itself. I choose not
to say anything more because my opinion, formed on
the basis of my personal experience with the Presiding
Judge of that Bench, is best left unstated.

Page 25 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

In these circumstances, the words of addressee No. 4
herein do ring true: "We have no right to say common
man has faith in the judiciary". But having said that,
whether any of you addressees, including Addressee
No. 4 herein do anything to correct the situation
remains to be seen.

25. He has also addressed another letter dated 12.04.2024 to
the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court wherein it is
mentioned as under :-

“After being made to literally beg of the Ld. Court
master, he showered his benevolence upon me by
granting me a date 15 days away on 15.04.2024, on
which date the matter has come to be listed at Sr. No
336, adding insult to injury. I do not need to point out
that on an average, about 80 matters get heard on
merits; I fail to see the point in listing a matter at Sr.
No. 336, unless it is only to create a record of listing a
matter without any intent to hear it.

Obviously, there is something very wrong either in the
Registry or in the Court of Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. D.
Suthar that I, vide this letter, implore you to address
and rectify. In the alternative, if for whatever reason,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. D. Suthar is not inclined to even
hear the matter, he may pass an appropriate judicial
order to release the matter from his board. That way,
at least I will have some hope for justice, and I will not

Page 26 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

lose complete faith in the institution.”

26. The petitioner while addressing this Court during the
course of hearing of the present petition which had taken
place on 16.01.2026 had contended that and raised a
question as to whether the Hon'ble judges be permitted to
continue the injustice being inflicted upon the citizen under
the cover of alternate remedy. He further contended that
“I'm sorry to say but the general opinion is that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court passes orders which it is unable to get
executed. Lalita Kumari for example.

27. He, thereafter, contended that “So it is rather distressing
that while one constitutional court shows the proactiveness
to address the issues pertaining to public safety, another
constitutional court flagrantly disregards the law thereby
ensuring that not even an F.I.R. is lodged.”

28. When this Court countered the petitioner Party-in-Person
as to whether he was making allegations against the Court,
he reaffirmed that he was stating merely the facts which
were emerging from record. He further stated that these
facts were already pointed out in Special Criminal
Application No.5144 of 2022. From the aforesaid it appears
that a disgruntled litigant after having failed to obtain
favourable orders from the institution is out to defame the
august institution. By making the averments in the
petition as well as the remarks made by the petitioner
during the course of hearing before this court are made
with an intention to lower the dignity of the institution at

Page 27 of 28
R/SCR.A/8358/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026

large. This conduct on the part of the petitioner is nothing
short of contempt of Court of not only this court but also of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well of the learned trial
court. Therefore, a notice is directed to be issued against
the petitioner Vishwas Sudhanshu Bhamburkar calling
him to explain as to why the proceedings under the
Contempt of Courts Act should not be initiated against
him. The Registry shall thereafter place the matter before
the bench assigned the roster for the subject. From the
facts stated herein above, this Court is also of the view that
the competency certificate issued by the Registry in favour
of the petitioner Party-in-Person allowing him to appear
before this Court in-person needs to be revisited.

29. Both the Criminal Misc. Applications stands disposed of
accordingly.
30. The Registry shall forthwith send a copy of this judgment
to the Registrar General of the High Court for necessary
action.

31. The Party-in-Person is not present when the matter is
pronounced.

32. The Live Streaming Video, which is ordered to be preserved
in the “Pen Drive” vide letter dated 19.01.2026, is ordered
to be placed on the record of this file.

(M. R. MENGDEY,J)
Nabil / J.N.W

Page 28 of 28

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: JAYANTILAL NARAYAN WAGHELA(HC00178), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 03/02/2026 17:1