Gujarat High Court
Pankajbhai Pranjivandas Modi vs State Of Gujarat on 20 June, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/10488/2020 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 10488 of 2020
==========================================================
PANKAJBHAI PRANJIVANDAS MODI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MM SAIYED(1806) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR ADILHUSHAIN M SAIYED(9723) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR HK PATEL, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 20/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] By way of present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being CR No.11199010200473 of 2020 registered with City A Division Police Station, District Bharuch for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "Atrocities Act") and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
[2.0] Learned advocate for respondent No.2 has not remain present.
[3.0] Heard learned advocate Mr. M.M. Saiyed for the petitioners and learned APP Mr. H.K. Patel for respondent No.1 - State of Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 21 22:24:05 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10488/2020 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2024 undefined Gujarat.
[4.0] At the outset, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that he restricts his prayer qua offence under the Atrocities Act only and requests to quash the proceedings qua Atrocities Act only.
[5.0] Perusing the complaint it appears that in the complaint it is alleged that the present petitioners despite having executed Banakhat of their house to some other party had shown the same house to the complainant and as the said house was liked by the complainant, it was decided by the complainant to purchase the said house for a consideration of Rs.45 lakh pursuant to which the complainant had transferred Rs.1 lakh through RTGS in the account of petitioner No.2 but thereafter, the petitioners neither executed the Banakhat nor returned the said amount of Rs.1 lakh and when the complainant asked for the return of her amount, the petitioners herein hurled abusive language and used castiest slur against the complainant. In this regard complaint came to be filed.
[6.0] Further, perusing the record it appears that respondent No.2 has online submitted her written objection cum reply on oath dated 16.09.2020, wherein the complainant has strongly opposed the present petition and requested to dismiss the present petition. However, today neither learned advocate for respondent No.2 nor respondent No.2 has remained present.
Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 21 22:24:05 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10488/2020 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2024 undefined [7.0] As stated above, the learned advocate for the petitioner has restricted his prayer for quashing of offences under the Atrocities Act only. To make out an offence under the Atrocities Act, actual derogatory words are required to be brought on record. In the present case, no any such words are brought on record. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Bachubhai Ranabhai Bharwad and Ors. reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Guj 1414 as well as the decision in the case of Apoorva Oza vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 2023(4) GLR 3101. It is pertinent to note that the provisions of Atrocities Act itself would indicate the ingredients of the intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. So far as application of offence under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act is concerned, there is no allegation qua present petitioner / accused that the petitioner had intentionally insulted or intimated respondent No.2 - complainant in a public place with intention to humiliate knowing fully well that the complainant is a member of SC or ST community. There is no averment in the complaint as regards abuse of complainant and so far as offence under Section 3(1)(w) of the Atrocities Act is concerned, there is no allegation qua present petitioner - accused that he intentionally touched the complainant, which was sexual in nature and without the consent of complainant. Even, there is no evidence that the present petitioner used words, acts or gestures of sexual nature towards the Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 21 22:24:05 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10488/2020 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2024 undefined complainant. All insults or intimidation to a person will not be an offence under the Atrocities Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to SC or ST community. Herein, no any such allegation against the present petitioners. Hence, no offence under the provisions of the Atrocities Act as alleged are made out against the present petitioners.
[8.0] Further, it is necessary to consider whether the power conferred by the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 21 22:24:05 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10488/2020 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2024 undefined in AIR 2006 SC 2872 and in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Apex Court has set out the categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised and held in para 102 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 Art. 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 :
(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 Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 21 22:24:05 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/10488/2020 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2024 undefined 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."
[9.0] In the result, the petition is allowed in part. The impugned FIR being CR No.11199010200473 of 2020 registered with City A Division Police Station, District Bharuch as well as all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof only qua offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are hereby quashed and set aside qua the present petitioners. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the aforesaid extent only.
[10.0] Respondent No.1 - State Authority is directed to investigate the impugned FIR insofar as offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is concerned and file the charge-sheet before the appropriate Court. Interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 06.08.2020 stands vacated forthwith. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Fri Jun 21 22:24:05 IST 2024