Gujarat High Court
Anil S/O Rajdayal Rai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9399/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 9399 of 2014
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (RECALL) NO. 1 of 2014
In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9399 of 2014
==========================================================
ANIL S/O RAJDAYAL RAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIGANT M POPAT(5385) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DR.ABHISST K THAKER(7010) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 01/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
Report forwarded by learned Trial Court is taken on record.
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.II-57 of 2013 registered with DCB Police Station, Vadodara City for the offences under Sections 507 and 114 of the IPC and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Complainant - Dilipbhai filed aforesaid FIR stating facts that his son Vinay married Pallavi. Subsequently, anonymous calls were coming on the mobile phone of the complainant, his wife and daughter etc. and person was intending to talk with Pallavi from different mobile numbers. Complainant having fed up with different calls from different mobile phones but informed Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:48:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9399/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined to the mother and relatives of Pallavi. Complainant also inquired from Pallavi whether she had any relationship prior to her marriage, she did not reply, ultimately, complainant filed aforesaid FIR under section 507 and 114 of IPC. Since in investigation, name of the petitioner revealed that he was calling from different mobile numbers, he approached this Court by way of present petition for quashing FIR under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
3. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that perusal of FIR does not disclose any ingredient of section 507 of IPC. No anonymous calls were made. Even otherwise, offence is non cognizable offence, there is clear bar of section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. for taking up investigation.
4. Learned APP referring to report of learned Trial Court submitted that the petitioner did not remain present before the learned Trial Court, hence, non bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is not cooperating in proceeding with the trial and hence, this Court may not exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
5. At the outset, referring FIR would indicate that offence under section 507 and 114 of IPC is registered against the petitioner. Section 114 of IPC is in regard to abetment of offence. It suggests that even if the person is not present when offence is committed, he can be prosecuted under section 114 of IPC. Plain reading of section indicates that there should be more than one Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:48:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9399/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined person arraigned as accused for the offence under section 114 of IPC.
6. Insofar as section 507 of IPC is concerned, it is Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication. It reads as under :-
507. Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication.--
Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment provided for the offence by the last preceding section.
7. Anonymous communication is must for attracting offence under section 507 of IPC. Bare reading of FIR and charge-sheet papers, it does not disclose that any kind of communication was made by the accused hiding himself by way of anonymous communication. Name of the petitioner comes in FIR as suspect and further it is alleged that he tried to establish communication from different mobile numbers belonging to his friends and family members. Thus, section 507 of IPC on factual aspect does not attract in the matter. One more aspect to be considered that it is non cognizable offence. In view of section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., Investigating Officer cannot investigate non cognizable offence Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:48:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9399/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined without prior order of Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Learned APP failed to point out that Investigating Officer has obtained order of Magistrate before investigating present offence.
8. This Court may gainfully refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335], and the law laid down therein has been consistently followed. In para 102, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:48:53 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9399/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
9. In view of above, allowing of trial against petitioner be absolutely absurd. Sub-para 4 of para 102 of Bhajan Lal (supra) is attracted.
10. In view of above, the petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly, it is allowed. Impugned FIR being C.R.No.II-57 of 2013 registered with DCB Police Station, Vadodara City along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:48:53 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9399/2014 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
11. Criminal Misc. Application No.1 of 2014 does not survive and accordingly, stand disposed of.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:48:53 IST 2025