Gujarat High Court
Chandubhai Tejaram Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat on 3 July, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3338 of 2019
(FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be NO
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation NO
of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
=======================================================
CHANDUBHAI TEJARAM THAKKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KUMAR H TRIVEDI(9364) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOAHAM JOSHI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 03/07/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC" for short), the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside criminal proceeding being Criminal Case No.433/2018 pending before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court at Bhabhar arising out of the First Information Report being Page 1 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined C.R. No.I-8/2018 registered with Bhabhar Police Station for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 395 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for short").
2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Hriday Buch for the applicant, learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for the respondent no.1 - State of Gujarat and learned advocate, Mr. Kumar Trivedi for the respondent no.2.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present application are as under, 3.1 An FIR being C.R. No.I-8/2018 came to be registered with Bhabhar Police Station for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 395 and 506(2) of the IPC against the applicant and other unknown persons alleging inter alia that on the day of incident, the applicant had come to the respondent no.2 herein and administered threats to withdraw the court case relating to land dispute and, thereafter, started giving kick and fist blows and in the meantime, other accused armed with dhoka and tommy reached the place of occurrence and assaulted the complainant with them and caused severe injuries and also committed dacoity of golden chain worn by the complainant, mobile phone and cash amount totaling to Rs.53,800/- and thereby the accused have committed alleged offences. 3.2 On registration of the aforesaid FIR against Page 2 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined the applicant, the applicant had filed quashing petition before this Hon'ble Court being Criminal Misc. Application No.3936/2018.
3.3 On 19.02.2018, the aforesaid quashing petition came up for hearing before this Hon'ble Court, however, the said quashing petition was not entertained by this Hon'ble Court and it was disposed of. However while disposing of the said quashing petition, this Hon'ble Court has categorically observed that none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395 are splet out and, hence, the concerned IO was directed to keep the said aspect while proceeding further with the investigation. 3.4 However despite observation of this Hon'ble Court, the chargesheet has been filed for the offences under Sections 395, 325, 323, 506(2) of the IPC and under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act and it has been culminated into Criminal Case No.433/2018, which is pending for adjudication before the learned Magistrate, Bhabhar.
4. Learned advocate, Mr. Buch submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would go through the contents of the FIR, in that event, prima facie the ingredients of dacoity punishable under Section 395 of the IPC are not made out. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, the impugned FIR is nothing but a clear Page 3 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined cut abuse of law, wherein the applicant is falsely implicated with sole intent to settle personal score as there is civil dispute going on between the parties since long with regard to the land. Learned advocate has referred to the documents produced on record, more particularly, documents related to civil dispute and submitted that the said set of documents clearly goes on to show that civil dispute has been converted into criminal one just to pressurize the applicant to settle personal score.
5. Learned advocate submitted that as stated above, immediately after registration of the FIR, the applicant had approached this Hon'ble Court by filing quashing petition and while disposing of the said quashing petition, this Hon'ble Court has specifically made observation that none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395 are splet out and, hence, the concerned IO was directed to keep the said aspect while proceeding further with the investigation. Learned advocate, however, submitted that despite such observation, the concerned IO has filed chargesheet for the offence under Section 395 of the IPC, which is in violation of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. Learned advocate submitted that from the above facts, it is clear that though the said fact was well within the knowledge of the concerned IO, he filed the aforesaid chargesheet by invoking Page 4 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined provision of Section 395 of the IPC and thus, he has intentionally added the said section despite the order of this Hon'ble Court with a sole intent to harass the applicant as invocation of said section would naturally change the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned. Learned advocate further submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would make a cursory glance upon the chargesheet papers, in that event, it would be found out that not a single piece of evidence is produced by the IO, which would show different incriminating material than earlier one when first quashing petition was filed. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that this is nothing but an attempt to overreach the process of law and, hence, same may not be permitted to be allowed. In support of his submissions, learned advocate has put reliance upon the decision of this Hon'ble Court in case of Pratik Jagdishbhai Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2017 (4) GLR 3018 and submitted that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the said decision. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that the present application may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the invocation of the provision of Section 395 of the IPC.
6. On the other hand, learned APP has objected the present application with a vehemence and submitted that earlier quashing petition filed by the applicant was not entertained by this Hon'ble Page 5 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined Court and it was disposed of at threshold at an admission stage without issuance of notice to the complainant and this is a second round by the applicant. Learned APP submitted that after the disposal of the said quashing petition, the investigation was concluded the chargesheet has been filed and, hence, second quashing petition based on same set of evidence would not required to be entertained.
7. Learned APP Mr. Joshi, however after taking instructions from one Naynaben Pratapbhai Sonara, Police Sub-Inspector, Bhabhar Police Station, Banaskantha has candidly submitted that it is true that there was an order of this Hon'ble Court while disposing of earlier quashing petition but through oversight, the concerned IO has invoked provision of Section 395 of the IPC. Learned APP, therefore, submitted that considering the facts of the case, appropriate order may be passed.
8. Learned advocate, Mr. Trivedi appearing for the respondent no.2 has also opposed the present application and submitted that the incident had occurred in a broad day light and the complainant was mercilessly beaten by the accused persons and the said fact is also supported by other attending material available on record. Learned advocate submitted that not only that, the said incident was videographed by one of the witness, who was present at the time of commission of crime and the said video recording, which was recovered by the Page 6 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined IO after drawing panchnama, clearly goes on to show that the involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime is clearly found out. Learned advocate submitted that after registration of the FIR, the applicant had immediately rushed to this Hon'ble Court by filing quashing petition, which was not entertained by this Hon'ble Court and this is a second round of litigation, which is not permissible in eye of law and, hence, this application may not be entertained. Learned advocate submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would entertain the present application at this juncture, in that event, he urges to this Hon'ble Court that if during the recording of evidence of the witnesses, any incriminating material is found out, on the basis of which basic ingredients of Section 395 of the IPC would be attracted, in that event, right to agitate the invocation of provision of said section at the relevant time be kept open in favour of the complainant. Learned advocate, however, urged that this application may not be entertained and same may be rejected.
9. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it is found out that for the impugned FIR, earlier quashing petition was filed being Criminal Misc. Application No.3936/2018 and admittedly, it was not entertained by this Hon'ble Court, however while disposing of the said quashing petition, it was specific observation of Page 7 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined this Hon'ble Court that none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395 of the IPC are spelt out and after making such observation, direction was issued upon the IO concerned to keep in mind the said aspect while proceeding further with the investigation. However as stated above, despite above facts, at the time of filing chargesheet on conclusion of the investigation, the provision of Section 395 of the IPC has been invoked by the IO, which can be said to be against the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court.
10. The observation made by the Hon'ble Court while passing an order dated 19.02.2018 in Criminal Misc. Application No.3936/2018 in Paragraph No.3 as under, "3. Considering the nature of the allegations, I am not inclined to disturb the investigation at this stage. I may only say that even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity punishable under Section-395 are spelt out. The case is not one of dacoity, this aspect needs to be kept in mind by the Investigating Officer while proceeding further with the investigation."
11. Thus from the above observation made by this Hon'ble Court, it is clear that there was specific Page 8 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined observation and direction with regard to the ingredients of Section 395 of the IPC, which provides for 'dacoity', which in the facts of the present case are not made out and the said fact was supported by the chargesheet papers, which have been proved by learned APP during the course of hearing. I have also gone through the investigation papers along with the statements of the witnesses and found out that none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395 of the IPC are spelt out. However as stated above, despite order of this Hon'ble Court, the concerned IO, under some misconception of facts, has filed chargesheet under Section 395 of the IPC, which cannot be stand in eye law.
12. At this Court, I would like to put reliance upon the decision upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocate for the applicant in case of Pratik Jagdishbhai Thakkar (supra), wherein this Hon'ble Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.32 to 36 as under,
32. The above takes me to consider whether the chargesheet could have been filed for the offence under Section 395 of the IPC. Section 390 of the IPC explains what is robbery. Section 390 of the IPC reads as under:
390. Robbery. In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When theft Page 9 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined is robbery. When theft is robbery.
Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. When extortion is robbery. When extortion is robbery.
Extortion is "robbery" if the
offender, at the time of committing
the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person, so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
Explanation. The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
Page 10 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined Illustrations
(a) A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Z's money and jewels from Z's clothes, without Z's consent. Here A has committed theft, and, in order to the committing of that theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery.
(b) A meets Z on the high road, shows a pistol, and demands Z's purse. Z, in consequence, surrenders his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z by putting him in fear of instant hurt, and being at the time of committing the extortion in his presence. A has therefore committed robbery.
(c) A meets Z and Z's child on the high road. A takes the child, and threatens (ci) to filing it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence, delivers his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is there present. A has therefore committed robbery on Z.
(d) A obtains property from Z by saying"
Your child is in the hands of my gang, Page 11 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined and will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees". This is extortion, and punishable as such: but it is not robbery, unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child.
33. Section 391 is with regard to the Dacoity.
Section 391 of the IPC reads as under:
391. Dacoity. When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "dacoity".
34. Theft amounts to `robbery', if in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Before theft can amount to `robbery', the offender must have voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to Page 12 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. The second necessary ingredient is that this must be in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft. The third necessary ingredient is that the offender must voluntarily cause or attempt to cause to any person hurt etc. for that end, that is, in order to the committing of the theft or for the purpose of committing theft or for carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft. It is not sufficient that in the transaction of committing theft hurt etc., had been caused. If hurt etc. is caused at the time of the commission of the theft but for an object other than the one referred to in sec. 390, I. P. Code, theft would not amount to robbery. It is also not sufficient that hurt had been caused in the course of the same transaction as commission of the theft. The three ingredients mentioned in sec. 390, I. P. Code, must always be satisfied before theft can amount to robbery and this has been explained in Bishambhar Nath v. Emperor A. Page 13 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined I. R. 1941 Oudh 476, in the following words:
"The words `for that end' in sec. 390 clearly mean that the hurt caused by the offender must be with the express object of facilitating the committing of the theft or must be caused while the offender is committing the theft or is carrying away or is attempting to carry away the property obtained by theft. It does not mean that the assault or the hurt must be caused in the same transaction or in the same circumstances."
[See : Himmatsing Shivsing Vs. The State of Gujarat; 1961 (Vol. II) GLR 678]
35. In the case of Karuppa Gounden v. Emperor A. I. R. 1918 Madras 321, which followed two Calcutta cases of Otaruddi Manjhi v. Kafiluddi Manjhi 5 C. W. N. 372 and King Emperor v. Mathura Thakur 6 C. W. N. 72, it has been observed at page 824 as follows :
"Now it is our duty to give effect to the words `for that end'. It would have been open to the legislature to have used other words which would not raise the difficulty that arises here. The public Prosecutor has been forced to argue that `for that end' must be read as meaning `in those circumstances'. In my opinion we cannot do that in Page 14 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined construing a section in the Penal Code.
Undoubtedly words `in those
circumstances' would widen the
application of the section and we are not permitted to do that. The matter has been considered in two judgments of the Calcutta High Court one of which is reported as Otaruddi Manjhi v. Kafiluddi Manjhi 5 C.W..N. 372. Their Lordships put the question in this way: ;
"It seems to us that the whole question turns upon the words 'for that end'. Was any hurt or fear of instant hurt, that was caused in the present case, cause for the end of 'the commission of the theft- We think not. It seems to us that whatever violence was used was used for the purpose of dispossessing the persons who were already in possession of the premises in question and had no relation to the commission of theft, although theft was committed at the same time."
The language used in another case reported as King Emperor v. Mathura Thakur 6 C. W. N. 72 is as follows:
"The question here arises whether Mathura Thakur when he attacked Soman Dhania, did so for the end referred to, namely, for the purpose of carrying away Page 15 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined the paddy, which had been harvested."
Those judgments in my opinion state the obvious intention of the Section and we are bound no give effect to it and I therefore follow the decisions in those two cases. Ordinarily, if violence or hurt etc. is caused al the time of theft, it would be reasonable to infer hat violence or hurt was caused for facilitating the commission of theft or for facilitating the carrying away of the property stolen or for facilitating the attempt to do so. But, there may be something in evidence to show that hurt or violence was caused not for this purpose but for a different purpose. [See : Himmatsing Shivsing Vs. The State of Gujarat; 1961 (Vol. II) GLR 678]
36. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit dacoity. The act of taking away mobiles lying in the flat would not constitute dacoity."
13. In view of the above proposition laid down by this Hon'ble Court, if the facts of the present case are carefully examined, it is found out that after the passing of the earlier order dated 19.02.2018, the concerned IO had carried out investigation and filed chargesheet before the court concerned for the alleged offences including the offence under Page 16 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined Section 395 of the IPC. However, I have carefully examined the statements of the persons concerned recorded during the course of investigation coupled with the other material and evidence collected by the IO and found that in the statements of the witnesses, they have reiterated the facts as narrated in the FIR and nothing fruitful material has come on record. Over and above that, it is also found out that there is no recovery of the mobile and/or cash during the course of investigation though submissions have been made that entire incident was videographed by one of the witness, which falsify the offence under Section 395 of the IPC. Therefore the present proceeding so far as the offence under Section 395 of the IPC are concerned, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
14. At the outset, it is apt to refer the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The relevant para reads as under:
"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch.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 u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which we have extracted and reproduced above, the following categories of cases are given by way of Page 17 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined 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 formula 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
F.I.R. 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; (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 Page 18 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined 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 non-cognizable 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, (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 Page 19 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined spite him due to private and personal grudge."
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of R.P. Kapur (supra) has summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings, which are as under, (I) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
16. In view of the ratio enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions as well as other decisions, it is required to be noted that whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to get the FIR quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance then, in such circumstances, the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. The Court while Page 20 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3338/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2024 undefined exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Therefore bare perusal of the contents of the FIR coupled with the chargesheet papers, it is found out that none of the ingredients to constitute the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 395 of the IPC are spelt out. Therefore, the present application deserves to be partly allowed to that extent permitting the proceeding/trial for the rest of the offences in accordance with law.
17. In the result, the present application is allowed partly. The impugned complaint being Criminal Case No.433/2018 pending before the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court at Bhabhar arising out of the First Information Report being C.R. No.I-8/2018 registered with Bhabhar Police Station is hereby quashed and set aside qua Section 395 of the IPC. However, it is clarified that the said proceeding shall be proceeded further for the rest of the offences in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.) Gautam Page 21 of 21 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 08 20:47:48 IST 2024