Gujarat High Court
Yashpalsinh Dilipsinh Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 30 April, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/4932/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4932 of 2024
==========================================================
YASHPALSINH DILIPSINH RATHOD & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SATYAJIT S SONAGARA(12218) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS DIVYANGNA JHALA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 30/04/2024
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] Learned advocate Ms. Rushvi C. Adhyaru states that she has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and seeks permission to file her Vakalatnama, which is granted. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
[2.0] RULE. Learned advocates waive service of note of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.
[3.0] Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the Bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
[4.0] By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC"), the petitioners have Page 1 of 7 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 30 20:52:46 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4932/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2024 undefined prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.11209020231475 of 2023 registered with Idar Police Station, District Sabarkantha for the offences punishable under Sections 354D(1), 294(b), 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, section 12 of the POCSO Act and section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and to quash all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
[5.0] Learned advocates for the respective parties submitted that during the pendency of proceedings, the parties have settled the dispute amicably and pursuant to such mutual settlement, the original complainant has also filed an Affidavit dated 18.04.2024 which is taken on record. In the Affidavit, the original complainant has categorically stated that the dispute with the petitioners has been resolved amicably and that she has no objection, if the present proceedings are quashed and set aside since there is no surviving grievance between them.
[6.0] Going through the impugned FIR it appears that the same is filed at the instance of respondent No.2 alleging that accused No.1 has been stalking the complainant and pressurizing the victim to develop love affair with accused No.1 which was denied by the victim / complainant. It is under these circumstances that the impugned FIR came to be filed. During the investigation it has revealed that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein alongwith petitioner No.1 on 09.11.2023 had gone to the school of the victim and had threatened and beaten the brother of the victim complainant and their names have been subsequently revealed in connection with Page 2 of 7 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 30 20:52:46 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4932/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2024 undefined the offence.
[7.0] It is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 482 of the CrPC is warranted. It is true that the powers under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr., reported in AIR 2006 SC 2872.
[8.0] Having heard learned advocates on both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303,
(ii) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) Page 3 of 7 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 30 20:52:46 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4932/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2024 undefined 4 SCC 582, (iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31, (iv) Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 190 and (v) Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC) as also considering the fact that now the dispute is amicably settled and accused No.1 - petitioner No.1 has assured the complainant that he will not harass the victim and even the complainant has affirmed the fact of settlement by filing her affidavit and hence, in the opinion of this Court, the further continuation of criminal proceedings against the present petitioners in relation to the impugned FIR would cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. Further, the continuance of trial pursuant to the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise. Even, considering the tender age of accused persons and the fact that they do not have any past antecedents, to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C..
[9.0] So far as offence under Section 354D(1) of the IPC is concerned, it appears from the report of the Investigating Officer dated 30.04.2024 that there was no any intention on the part of the accused No.1 to outrage the modesty of the victim and was following the victim as they were known to each other and belong to the same community. Even otherwise, the offence under Section 354D of the IPC is compoundable with the Page 4 of 7 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 30 20:52:46 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4932/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2024 undefined permission of the Court when the victim has no objection in compounding of the offence under Section 354D of the IPC. Insofar as offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC is concerned, mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC and to prove the offence under Section 294 of IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others. The test of obscenity under Section 294(b) of IPC is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. In this regard reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.S. Madhanagopal & Anr. vs. K. Lalitha reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844.
[9.1] Insofar as offence under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC alleged against the present petitioners is concerned, it is worth to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624: 2023 INSC 683, wherein it is held as follows:
"Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts Page 5 of 7 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 30 20:52:46 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4932/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2024 undefined and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant - In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant. (Para 25- 26) Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - One of the essential elements for constituting an offence under Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present. (Para 28) Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 - Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. (Para 27) 3 Interpretation of Statutes- All penal statutes are to be construed strictly
- Court must see that the thing charged is an offence within the plain meaning of the words used and must not strain the words. (Para 19- 21)"
It is also appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein it has been observed and held as under:
"(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which Page 6 of 7 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 30 20:52:46 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/4932/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2024 undefined 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."
[10.0] In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being CR No.11209020231475 of 2023 registered with Idar Police Station, District Sabarkantha as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioners herein. If the petitioners are in jail, the jail authority concerned is directed to release the petitioners forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 7 of 7 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 30 20:52:46 IST 2024