Gujarat High Court
Harish Satar Molvi vs State Of Gujarat on 25 August, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1310/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1310 of
2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
HARISH SATAR MOLVI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR. JARJEESKHAN(7235) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. JIRGA JHAVERI, ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 25/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed praying inter alia for quashing of the FIR being CR No. 11196008240020/2024 registered with J. P. Road Police Station, Vadodara City which is at Annexure - A. The FIR came to be registered under Section 424, 427, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC.
2. The undisputed facts are, that the complainant side is running a school in a common plot of Binanagar Co- operative Housing Society, which is a co-operative society Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 21:25:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1310/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined and on the date of incident, as per the allegation, the wall constructed of the school was removed with the use of JCB and prior thereto, there was a talk for settling the matter with regards to the encroachment made on the common plot by the school and during that period, verbal altercation had taken place wherein threats of life were issued. With these allegations, the FIR came to be registered on 20.01.2024.
3. The petitioners, who are implicated as accused persons, are the members of the Binanagar Co-Operative society and when they approached this Court, this Court had passed detailed order on 31.01.2024 and granted interim relief in terms of Para 35(B), while admitting the petition. Accordingly, the proceedings were stayed. However, when the matter is taken up, learned APP has placed on record the report of Police Sub Inspector of J.P. Road Police Station, Vadodara City, which is ordered to be taken on record.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that there was an ongoing dispute, wherein the petitioners, who are the members of the Co-operative Housing Society, had brought to the notice of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation about the encroachment by the school and the need to remove such encroachment as the same was without any prior permission from the Authority, to which the Municipal Corporation had responded to the Society for taking up the issue with the managing Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 21:25:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1310/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined committee/members of the society and to pass necessary resolution and forward the copy of such resolution to the Municipal Corporation so as to enable the Corporation to take an action under section 260(1)(2) of GPMC Act,1949.
5. Learned Advocate has submitted that, in view of the aforesaid intimation from the Corporation, the society had taken a decision by passing a resolution dated 08.05.2023 and resolved to take necessary action for removing the illegal construction of the school. It is in this interregnum period, before the action could be taken, that the incident is alleged to have taken place and the FIR came to be registered.
6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has, at the outset, submitted that the FIR which is registered under section 424, 427 and 506(2) of the IPC would not have been registered as none of the ingredients are made out, more particularly, the ingredients of section 506(2) are not at all made out and in absence of any ingredients of section 506(2), the FIR could not have been registered simply for the offences under section 424 and 427 of the IPC. In this connection, learned Advocate has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Dinesh alias MukeshBhai Jitabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in 2016 JX (Guj) 446, wherein in turn the Court has relied upon the decision in case of Ronak Ashokbhai Kedia v. State of Gujarat, wherein specifically the ingredients of 506(2) have been defined and in absence of any such ingredients of section Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 21:25:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1310/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined 506(2) with cause and alarm and proximate period during which such threats have been issued the ingrediants of Section 506(2) could not be made out. The Court has held in Para - 16 as under:
16 In the case of Ronak Ashok Kedia v. State of Gujarat [Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4145 of 2012 decided on 19th November, 2014], I have explained as to what would constitute the offence punishable under Section 506(2) of the I.P.C. I may quote the observations made in paras 10, 11 and 12 as under:
"10. The above takes me to consider whether any case is made out so far as the offence under Section 506(2) of the IPC is concerned. Section 506 reads as under:
"S. 506. Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
11. The essential ingredients The offence of criminal intimidation has been defined under Section 503 I.P.C and Section 506 I.P.C provides punishment for it. Section 503 reads as under:Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 21:25:44 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1310/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined "Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation: A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the persons threatened is interested, is within this section.
An offence under Section 503 has following essentials:
1. Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
2. The threat must be with intent;
(i) to cause alarm to that person; or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or
(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
12. A bare perusal of Section 506 IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 21:25:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1310/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that an accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant, but with a view to deterring him from interfering with the work of construction of the wall, which was undertaken by the accused - applicant, would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. In the entire FIR, there is no whisper of any allegation that the threats which were administered actually caused any alarm to the first informant and he felt actually threatened."
7. In the facts of the present case also, as is alleged, insofar as Section 506(2) is concerned, the allegation is to the extent that approximately 15 days prior to the incident of demolition of the wall, some of the accused persons (petitioners herein), had approached the school for the purpose of settlement and it is at that stage that the verbal altercation had taken place and threats of life were issued. There does not appear to be any immediate proximate period during which the threats appear to have been issued as it is almost after the period of 15 days that the FIR came to be registered invoking Section 506(2) and therefore, no alarm, as is required to be essential part of the ingredient, is made out against the petitioners.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the Court is of the view that even from the bare reading of the FIR, the allegations under Section 506(2) are not made out and therefore, in the opinion of the Court, at the first instance, registration of the FIR was not warranted as the only ingredients, if at all Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 21:25:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1310/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined are to be considered, are that of Section 424 and 427 of the IPC.
9. At this stage, Learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that even if the allegations under Section 506(2) of the IPC are not taken into consideration, but the complainant cannot be rendered remediless, insofar as the allegations under Section 424 and 427 of the IPC are made out. He has therefore referred to once again the complaint wherein, it is clearly stated that the demolition had taken place and that too at the hands of the present petitioners. Moreover, he has also referred to the report of the Police, wherein reference is made to several witnesses who have given statements which are similar to the allegations made in the FIR, thereby supporting the case of the complainant School with regards to the allegation of demolition and removal of gate. The Court has taken into consideration the provisions of Section 468, wherein the allegations are of 11.11.2023, for which the FIR was registered on 20.01.2024 and considering the maximum sentence that can be imposed for an offence under Section 424 and 427 and considering the provision of Section 468 of Cr.P.C, it would still be available for the complainant to approach an appropriate Forum for ventilating the complaint and ingredients of Section 424 and 427 of the IPC.
10. With the aforesaid reasoning, the Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner, insofar as registration of the FIR, deserves consideration and therefore the FIR bearing Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 21:25:44 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1310/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined No. 11196008240020/2024 registered with J. P. Road Police Station, Vadodara City is ordered to be quashed and set aside, subject to the observations made in favour of the complainant to resort to an appropriate Forum for appropriate complaint.
11. Accordingly, present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) Mehul Desai Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Mon Sep 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 01 21:25:44 IST 2025