Gujarat High Court
Babubhai Ishwarbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 1 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/692/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 692 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BABUBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. BK. RAJ(3794) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MEHUL H RATHOD(701) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 01/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1) By way of present revision application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity) Gandhinagar, in Special (Atrocity) Case No.20/2009 below Exh:9, wherein the application filed by respondent No.2 for further investigation alleging that the police has not properly investigated the offence and certain sections were not inserted was allowed.
2) Heard Mr. B.K.Raj learned counsel for the applicant - accused, Mr. Rohan Raval, ld. APP for the respondent - State and Mr.Mehul K. Rathod, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 20:46:00 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/692/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined
3) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant filed a complaint before Adalaj Police Station, for the offence under Sections 3(1)(10) of the Atrocoties Act and Sections 504 and 506(2) of IPC. Pursuant to the same, the applicant was arrested and granted on bail. Chargesheet came to be filed and proceedings came to be registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No.20/2009. In the said proceedings, respondent No.2 filed an application for further investigation alleging against the police that the police has not properly investigated the offence and certain sections were not inserted, which came to be allowed. Hence, present revision application is filed.
4) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that respondent No.2 was very well known that he has no sustainable case which may result in acquitting the applicant and therefore, he had preferred an application for further investigation only with a view to cause the delay in disposal of the trial. It is also submitted that, after the commencement of the trial, respondent No.2 has come with false case that his property has been dispossessed by fabricating the documents by the petitioner and other persons and respondent No.2 had never asserted such facts before the police though the FIR was registered on 29.06.2008 and thereafter, his further statement was taken by the police on 01.07.2008. In fact, the police had properly investigated the offence and found that the case is made out only under Section 3(1)(10) of Atrocity Act only. It is humbly submitted by the petitioner that respondent no. 2 is not a farmer and he is a power of attorney holder of Survey no. 194 only. No when survey no. 194 or 193/2 has been transferred to his name as per the land record despite that he says that this property belongs to him. Respondent no. 2 has given his all rights Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 20:46:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/692/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined qua land being Survey No. 193/2 by selling it to Shri Natwar Solanki by power of attorney holder Shree Virambhai Chelabhai Desai who is the original power of attorney of Survey No. 193/2 and whose power of attorney was also canceled by the petitioner and others in the year 2004. It is submitted that the petitioner has never sold his land to respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 2 has purchased the property from Virambhai Chelabhai Desai who is a power of attorney of the petitioner and others in the year of 1999 to 2004. Therefore, respondent No.2 only malafide intention filed an application for further investigation, which ought not to have been allowed by learned Magistrate. Hence, present revision application may be allowed.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Miteshkumar Rameshbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2001 and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reeta Nag Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors, reported in 2009 (9) SCC 129. and requested to allow present revision application.
5) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the present revision application and contended that dispute was going on with regard to agricultural land and due to this, the incident occurred on 22.06.2008. Thereafter, on 29.06.2008, the complainant filed a complaint before Chandkheda Police Station which came to be registered as C.R.No.II-68/2010 for the offence under sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the Atrocity Act. Though the complainant was restrained from entering into his land and humiliated to his caste, Sections 3(1)(iv)(v) of the Atrocities Act were not inserted. The complainant filed an application to Dy.S.P, SC/ST Cell, Gandhinagar for addition of above sections, but Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 20:46:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/692/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined which came to be rejected. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application below Exh:9 for further investigation, which came to be allowed by learned Court below. Therefore, the order passed by learned Court below is just and proper as the police has not properly carried out the investigation.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kishan Lal Vs. Dharmendra Bafna and Anr,. Reported in 2009 (7) SCC 685, Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, reported in 2004 (5) SCC 347, and argued that merely delay is not relevant consideration for further investigation. Learned Magistrate has power to order for further investigation. He has also relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No.573/2019 between Shri Dineshchandra Gokuldas Kalantry Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
6) Learned APP appearing for the respondent State has submitted that this Court may pass appropriate order.
7) Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint before Adalaj Police Station for offences under Sections 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act and Sections 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The allegations in the complaint suggest that, in connection with a disputed property, the accused erected a fence on 22.06.2008 and thereby blocked the access to a common plot. This led to a quarrel, and the complaint was lodged thereafter. After investigation, chargesheet was filed on 13.07.2009, and charges were framed against the accused under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act and Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC. Witnesses were examined Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 20:46:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/692/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 20/2009 on 23.07.2009. Subsequently, on 11.08.2009, the complainant filed an application for further investigation, stating that during the investigation, the provisions under Sections 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(5) of the Atrocities Act had not been investigated and no charges had been framed under these sections. As a result, application was made for further investigation. The learned Sessions Court allowed the application on 13.10.2009, after taking cognizance of the case and commencing the recording of evidence. Upon perusing the records and the information provided under the RTI Act at Exh. R1, it is evident that the investigating officer - Deputy Superintendent of Police, has thoroughly investigated the case. No offence under Sections 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(5) of the Atrocities Act was found to have been committed. Furthermore, in relation to the disputed property, a civil suit is ongoing, and a chapter case being No. 188/2008, was registered qua breach of public tranquility.
8) Though no evidence was found regarding the ownership or possession of the disputed property, the investigating officer submitted a report stating that the property was sold through a Power of Attorney. Subsequently, a dispute arose concerning the consideration amount, which led to the cancellation of the sale deed. Thereafter, the property was transferred by sale agreement, but the sale deed was never executed. In this regard, Civil Suit No. 42/2007 was filed before the Civil Court in Gandhinagar, and a complaint was also lodged subsequently. Considering the nature of the dispute and the lack of evidence found during the investigation, the investigating officer confirmed that no offence under Sections 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(5) of the Atrocities Act was made out. Thus, there was no necessity to further investigate these sections, as the matter had already been investigated. While Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 20:46:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/692/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined framing the charges, the Court took into account and did not frame charges under Sections 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(5) of the Atrocities Act. It is important to note that the punishment for violations under Sections 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(5) of the Atrocities Act ranges from six months to five years. Under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has ample power to alter the charges or add new charges during the course of the proceedings. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that, after framing the charges and recording evidence, it is very belated stage to re-appreciate this issue. Since proper investigation already being conducted and a report being submitted regarding Sections 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(5) of the Atrocities Act, the order of learned Sessions Court for further investigation required to be interfered with.
9) In view of the law laid down in the cases of Amrut Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors., reported in 2017 (4) SCC 177 and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2019 (17) SCC 1, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Sessions Court has committed an error in passing the order for further investigation. As far as the pronouncement in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi (supra) is concerned, the same has already been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (supra). Hence, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 are not helpful.
10) Even in the case of Rampal Gautam & Ors. Vs. State, reported in 2025 (SCC) Online 1231, more particularly para 12, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that further investigation is to arrive at the truth and to do real substantial justice and further investigation and re- investigation stand altogether on a different footing. However, a caveat was added that before directing such investigation, the Court or the concerned police officer has to Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 20:46:00 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/692/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/04/2026 undefined apply mind to the material available on record and arrive at a satisfaction that investigation of such allegations is necessary for the just decision of the case. Here as discussed above, no such material which suggests that further investigation is warranted and police has already investigated the offence under Sections 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(5) of the Act. In absence of any material or reasonable basis, further investigation cannot be permitted. IN this regard, reference is required to be made in the case of K. Vadivel Vs. K. Shanthi, reported in 2024 (19) SCC 382.
11) For the foregoing reasons and observations, the present revision application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order dated 13.10.2009, passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Gandhinagar, in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 20/2009 below Exh. 9, is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is clarified that during proceedings, if the learned Sessions Court comes to the conclusion that an offence under Sections 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(5) of the Atrocities Act is made out, it is open to the Sessions Court to alter the charge under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure( Section 239 of BNSS). The record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. Rule is made absolute.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by SUCHITKUMAR PATEL(HC01083) on Sat Apr 04 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 06 20:46:00 IST 2026