Gujarat High Court
Kuldeep Dayabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 2 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/34860/2016 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 34860 of 2016
==========================================================
KULDEEP DAYABHAI PATEL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR VASHISTHA M JOSHI(8972) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 02/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners, the learned advocate for the private respondents, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
2. By way of the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.P.C."), the petitioners seek to quash the impugned Criminal Complaint being No.M/1/2016 registered at Alang Police Station, Dist. Bhavnagar for offences punishable under Sections 199, 202, 219, 323, 504, 506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC") and Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act (fort short, "the Act").
3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned FIR is nothing but a malicious and vexatious prosecution, lodged with an oblique motive to exert undue pressure upon the petitioners, who are officials of the Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (for short, PGVCL), on the pretext of obtaining from Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 03 23:58:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/34860/2016 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined the private respondent a certificate purporting to show that they belong to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category.
3.1. It is further submitted that no incident, as narrated in the FIR, ever took place. Even assuming arguendo that the allegations are taken at their face value, the alleged occurrence is not shown to have taken place "within public view," which is a sine qua non for attracting the statutory provisions invoked.
3.2. It is next contended that the reliance upon Section 199 IPC is wholly misconceived inasmuch as there is no false statement made in any declaration which is legally receivable in evidence. Similarly, the invocation of Section 202 IPC, which pertains to intentional omission to give information of an offence, is misplaced. As regards Section 219 IPC, which contemplates a public servant in judicial proceedings acting contrary to law, it is urged that no such allegation can be attributed to the petitioners.
3.3. Learned advocate for the petitioners further pointed out that the allegations under Sections 199, 219, and 202 IPC have, in fact, been directed against accused No.3 - Shri D.J. Sosa, Police Inspector, Alang Police Station, Bhavnagar and not against the petitioners herein.
3.4. It is also submitted that the complainant has not taken any medical treatment either from a government hospital or from any other medical facility which could prima facie indicate that he had sustained any injury. Likewise, there are no ingredients on record to suggest commission of the offence of criminal intimidation of such nature as would cause alarm to the complainant or provoke breach of Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 03 23:58:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/34860/2016 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined public tranquillity.
3.5. On the cumulative strength of the above submissions, it is contended that the offences alleged are not borne out from the bare reading of the FIR, and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition may be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondent has canvassed that the impugned FIR came to be registered pursuant to the order passed by the learned Special Atrocity Court in Criminal Inquiry No. 1 of 2016, which, in itself, demonstrates that the Special Court had, at the threshold, prima facie applied its judicial mind to the allegations levelled therein. It is, therefore, urged that no case for interference is made out, and the present petition deserves to be dismissed in limine.
5. In opposition, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed on record the report duly signed by Mrs. Rima Zala, Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell, Bhavnagar, and submitted that upon an incisive investigation into the alleged offence, no material surfaced to even remotely suggest the commission of any cognizable offence. It has been pointed out that the complainant, in his initial statement recorded on 28.08.2016, made no whisper, much less any categorical averment, pertaining to the incident now sought to be projected in the FIR.
5.1. It is further submitted that the investigation, which was carried out pursuant to the directions of the learned Special Court, did not unearth any of the statutory ingredients necessary to constitute the Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 03 23:58:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/34860/2016 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined alleged offences. Attention has also been drawn to the order dated 28.12.2016 passed by this Court, whereby interim relief in terms of paragraph 7B came to be granted and further investigation was stayed. Even otherwise, it is emphasized that the investigation already undertaken prior to the said stay order has categorically exonerated the petitioners as also accused No. 3 - Shri D.J. Sosa, Police Inspector, Alang Police Station, Bhavnagar.
5.2. The learned APP has further submitted that, apart from the absence of any incriminating material, it deserves to be noted that Shri D.J. Sosa himself belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, and hence the invocation of provisions of the Act against him stands on a tenuous, nay, wholly unsustainable footing in law.
5.3. In the conspectus of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned APP prays that this Court may be pleased to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
6. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced at the Bar and upon a careful perusal of the report tendered by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it emerges that the genesis of the impugned FIR lies in the incident where the petitioners had merely required the complainant to produce a certificate evidencing his status as a member of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. The complainant, being aggrieved by such insistence, is alleged to have entered into an altercation within the office premises of the PGVCL, which subsequently culminated in the lodging of the present FIR.
6.1. A meticulous examination of the investigation records reveals Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 03 23:58:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/34860/2016 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined that nothing incriminating was elicited by the Investigating Officer to substantiate the allegations sought to be projected by the complainant. On the contrary, the evidence on record unmistakably demonstrates that the statutory ingredients constituting the offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 502 (criminal intimidation), and 506(2) (aggravated criminal intimidation) of the IPC are wholly absent in the matter.
6.2. Even qua the allegation of uttering caste-related derogations, the material on record does not inspire confidence. At the highest, the allegations contained in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, would not attract the rigour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, inasmuch as such utterances were allegedly made in a closed office environment and not "within public view" as mandated by law.
6.3. Moreover, the investigating officer reiterated to this court that the complainant in his first statement did not allege anything against the petitioner and Mr. D.J. Sosa, and no substantive material is found against the petitioners during the investigation which may substantiate the allegation against the petitioners even at a prima facie level. It is noticeable that the complainant had filed a private complaint before the Special Court, Mahuva; it was registered as Criminal Inquiry No. 1 of 2016. The learned Special Judge passed the order below inquiry on 7.12.2016 and made over the investigation to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Perusal of the order indicates that the learned trial court has not discussed any reasoning for making over the investigation to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The order passed by the Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 03 23:58:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/34860/2016 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined learned Special Atrocity Judge, upon perusal, shows it to be cryptic and a non-reasoned order. Therefore, it appears that the order is without application of mind, except for the bare line that the private complaint has been read, documents annexed with the private complaint have been considered, and the learned advocate for the private complainant is heard. No other reasons have been assigned by the learned Special Atrocity Judge to make over the investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. At this juncture, useful reference can be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramdev Food Products Private Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, (2015) 6 SCC 439, the Supreme Court deliberated on the parameters for when a Magistrate may exercise the power under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The key discussion occurs in paragraphs 8 to 14 of the judgment, where the Court elucidates the circumstances under which a Magistrate may direct police investigation under Section 156(3), without taking cognizance, and instead of proceeding under Section 202 of the CrPC which entails a post-cognizance inquiry.
6.4. In view of the above, the present petition merits consideration. It holds merit, and the FIR is found to be malicious, vexatious, and intended to pressurize the petitioners, who are officials of PGVCL.
7. Accordingly, the petition is Allowed. The impugned Criminal Complaint being M/1/2016 registered with Alang Police Station as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
8. The amount of compensation shall be paid to the concerned Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 03 23:58:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/34860/2016 ORDER DATED: 02/09/2025 undefined department within a period of four weeks, failing which the said department shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate recovery proceedings in accordance with law.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 03 23:58:47 IST 2025