Introduction
In a significant order, the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Padadhri has rejected a police “C-Summary” report — filed by the investigating agency to close a case as unsubstantiated — and instead allowed the complainant’s protest petition, taking cognizance against seven police personnel, including the officer who fired the fatal shots, for offences of murder and abetment under the Indian Penal Code. The order is a notable instance of a magistrate independently scrutinising investigation records in a case where police officers themselves were the accused, and declining to accept the police’s own closure report despite it having been filed by the same department whose officers stood accused.
Background Facts
The case arises out of an incident in which police personnel from Bajana Police Station had gone to the village of Gedhiya to apprehend one Hanifkhan Malek, alias Kalo Munno, who was wanted in another criminal matter. During the operation, an altercation is alleged to have taken place after Hanifkhan’s son, Madinkhan, arrived at the scene. It is alleged that Accused No. 1, Virendrasinh Jadeja, a police officer, fired his service weapon, fatally shooting both Hanifkhan (the complainant’s son-in-law) and Madinkhan (her nephew) in the chest, and that Accused Nos. 2 to 7 abetted the commission of the offence.
The complainant, Hanifaben Bismillakhan Jatmalek, had approached the jurisdictional court seeking registration of an FIR against the accused police officers. The Court noted that the complainant and her family had faced repeated obstruction over roughly four years in their attempts to have an FIR registered, and that it was only pursuant to a direction of the court that FIR No. 11211058250203/2025 was eventually registered at Bajana Police Station on 29.05.2025.
Following investigation, the police filed a “C-Summary” report — under which an FIR is closed on the ground that, although the complaint may be factually accurate, there is insufficient evidence to support prosecution. The Taluka Executive Magistrate’s report accompanying the summary stated that statements had been recorded from the doctor who treated the injured police officers, the owner of the premises where the incident occurred, the forensic science officer who examined the private vehicle used during the raid and the scene of the incident, and other related witnesses, and that on a detailed examination of this material, the complaint appeared to have been filed on the basis of a mistaken understanding of the facts.
The Complainant’s Protest Petition
On notice of the C-Summary, the complainant filed a protest petition (Annexure 4), opposing the closure. It was contended that, since the accused were themselves police officers, they had been wrongly protected and shielded from prosecution for a serious offence, resulting in grave injustice, and that the C-Summary was accordingly wholly unjustified and ought to be rejected. It was further submitted that the accused had killed the complainant’s son-in-law and nephew by shooting them in the chest with a government firearm, acting in concert with one another, and that despite this, all police officers involved had spared no effort to protect the accused. It was alleged that the investigating officer had recorded witness statements arbitrarily and in a manner designed to shield fellow police personnel, and that where a court itself had directed registration of a complaint against police officers in connection with an offence as grave as murder, a C-Summary filed by the police in the same matter ought to be rejected. Reliance was placed on the powers available to a magistrate under Sections 190, 200, and 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to reject a final report and either direct further investigation or take cognizance directly.
The Court’s Examination of the Evidence
Having heard the complainant’s counsel and examined the record, the Court undertook a detailed review of the witness statements and material on file.
Eyewitness testimony: The Court examined the statement of Abdulkhan Alubhai Motibhai Sipahi, described as the most significant eyewitness to the incident, who lived opposite the deceased’s house. He stated that on the night in question, having gone up to his terrace due to a power outage, he saw a white vehicle arrive in the street and three to four men — whom he identified as police personnel, including Jadeja Saheb — get out and attempt to apprehend Hanifkhan, who fled inside his gated compound. The witness stated that after the police forced the gate open and brought Hanifkhan out toward the vehicle, Hanifkhan’s son Madinkhan arrived carrying a sharp weapon (dharia) and approached the vehicle, pleading with the officers to release his father. According to the witness, despite being told his father would be released if he did not create a disturbance, Madinkhan approached the vehicle’s bonnet, at which point Jadeja Saheb shot him directly, and then fired a second shot at Hanifkhan. The witness stated that the police then left the vehicle at the scene and departed, and that villagers took the injured men to the hospital. He further stated that he had seen a firearm lying near the front seat of the abandoned police vehicle, and that he was subsequently arrested in connection with the case and spent 18 days in jail before being released on bail, and that he did not wish to say anything further.
Medical evidence regarding the injured police officers: The Court examined the statement of Dr. Shyamlal Kavaldhari Ram, who had examined the police personnel after the incident. He stated that on preliminary examination and questioning, the officers had told him they were attacked while attempting to apprehend the accused and had fled from the direction of Kamalpur/Kachoria, and that based on their body language and mental state, it prima facie appeared that a life-threatening attack had indeed occurred on PSI Jadeja and his team, all of whom appeared frightened and had sustained injuries of varying severity. The doctor’s statement recorded that PSI Virendrasinh Navalsinh Jadeja had sustained a sharp-weapon injury to the lower left side of his back, measuring approximately 15.20 cm in length, 1 cm in width, and 0.75 cm in depth, which had bled and required stitches, along with a 4 cm abrasion on his left elbow.
However, the Court noted a discrepancy: the accompanying MLC report (No. 466/2021) for Jadeja did not specify the nature of the injury, and a subsequent medical certificate (No. 28/2021) issued by Dr. Darshansinh Padhiyar on 08.12.2021 described the injury as “simple” in nature. The MLC certificates for the other police officers, issued by Dr. Kavaldhari, similarly did not specify the nature of their injuries. On this basis, the Court observed that the medical evidence on record did not support a finding that the deceased had carried out a life-threatening attack on the police personnel.
Statement of the principal accused: The Court also examined the detailed statement of Accused No. 1, Virendrasinh Jadeja, in which he described the sequence of events — including the attempt to apprehend Hanifkhan, an alleged struggle in which Hanifkhan brandished a pistol before being restrained, the arrival of Madinkhan armed with a sharp weapon, an alleged stabbing injury to Jadeja’s back, and his account of firing his service pistol at Madinkhan and then at Hanifkhan, in each case citing the need to protect himself and his colleagues, followed by an account of a crowd gathering and allegedly attacking the police party as they attempted to leave with the injured men.
The Court observed that, on Jadeja’s own version, the nature of the attack described did not appear such as would have caused life-threatening injury necessitating firing in self-defence. While Jadeja’s statement confirmed that he fired the round that struck Madinkhan in the front of the body, and that he claimed to have done so to protect himself and his colleagues, the Court held that whether the firing was genuinely an act of self-defence was a matter for evidence and trial, since self-defence is treated as an exception under the Indian Penal Code that must be established rather than presumed. The Court noted that the post-mortem reports and inquest panchnamas on record clearly established, prima facie, that the deaths of Hanifkhan and Madinkhan were caused by the firing.
Further medical opinion: On being questioned by police as to whether the sharp weapon injury to Jadeja’s back could have caused death had it struck a different part of the body, Dr. Kavaldhari stated that had the injury been to the neck or head, there would have been a 100% possibility of death — but the Court noted that none of the police personnel had sustained any injury to the neck or head.
The Court’s Conclusion
On a comprehensive assessment of the documentary evidence, the Court held that the deaths of Hanifkhan and Madinkhan were caused by firing from Virendrasinh Jadeja’s pistol, and that the record did not establish that the firing was carried out to protect the lives of Jadeja or his fellow officers. The Court also noted that the incident dated back to 2021, and that the police had filed the present C-Summary only after collecting all available evidence over that period. In these circumstances, the Court held that no further investigation was required, and that the material on record disclosed sufficient prima facie evidence to take cognizance of offences under Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.
The Order
- The C-Summary filed by the police was rejected, and the protest petition filed by the original complainant was allowed.
- The matter was directed to be registered as a criminal case, and summons were ordered to be issued to all seven accused — Virendrasinh Jadeja, Rajeshbhai Savjibhai, Shaileshbhai Prahladbhai, Kiritbhai Ganeshbhai, Digvijaysinh Hardipsinh, Prahladbhai Prabhubhai, and Manubhai Govindbhai — returnable on 08.08.2026.
- The court staff were directed to ensure copies of the case papers were made available to the accused before that date, and to send a copy of the order to the Superintendent of Police, Surendranagar.
Case Details: Hanifaben Bismillakhan Jatmalek v. Virendrasinh Jadeja & Ors. Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Padadhri, Surendranagar | Summary Case No. 1 of 2025 Order dated 18.07.2026
Click HERE for full ORDER/JUDGMENT
Lawcutor 