Gujarat HC dismisses contempt petition against police in Dr Chag suicide case

The Gujarat high court held that it was not the right forum to decide on the petition since the petitioner has invoked contempt jurisdiction

The Gujarat high court today dismissed a contempt petition against the state police filed by Hitarth Chag, son of Veraval-based physician Dr Atul Chag who died by suicide in February, on the grounds that it was not the right forum to decide.

Dr Atul Chag’s son in his plea alleged that police had acted in contempt of the Supreme Court’s Lalita Kumari judgment by refusing to lodge an FIR in the case. (Representative Image)

Hitarth in his plea alleged that police had acted in contempt of the Supreme Court’s Lalita Kumari judgment by refusing to lodge a first information report (FIR) in the case. Justice A J Shastri held that had the petition been filed under the writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution, the court could have a different view on the matter but since the petitioner has invoked contempt jurisdiction, it was not the right forum to decide.

Chug, 59, a physician and philanthropist in the coastal town of Veraval was found hanging at his residence with a suicide note beside him on February 12. The one-line suicide note written in Gujarati blamed Rajesh Chudasama and Naran Chudasama for his death. Relatives and friends have alleged that the name mentioned in the suicide note is the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member of Parliament (MP) from Junagadh-Gir Somnath, and his father, respectively.

On February 17, his son Hitarth filed a complaint with the Veraval police alleging that his father committed suicide as the MP and his father had borrowed about ₹1.75 crore from Chug in 2008 and refused to return it. He also alleged that the MP and his father had threatened Chug with dire consequences if he sought the money back.

While a case of accidental death was registered, no FIR has been registered till date.

“The judgment was pronounced today, and the court has refrained from exercising contempt jurisdiction in this matter. A detailed order is expected by tomorrow and after studying it we will decide on the future course of action,” said Rajesh Kanani, the lawyer for the petitioner.

The investigating officer contested the maintainability of Hitarth’s petition on the grounds that contempt jurisdiction can only be invoked before the Supreme Court, where the Lalita Kumari judgment was pronounced.

The SC judgment lays guidelines for registering FIRs in cognizable offences and prescribes a time-bound inquiry for non-cognizable ones.