Gujarat High Court
Vinodkumar Parsottamdas Joshi vs The State Of Gujarat on 17 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/14423/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 14423 of 2020
==========================================================
VINODKUMAR PARSOTTAMDAS JOSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR DHRUV TOLIYA(9249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JAYESH A DAVE(253) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR ROHAN RAVAL, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 17/03/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), the applicant seeks quashing of the FIR registered as CR No.11205006200313 of 2020 registered with Gadhshisha Police Station, Kutch (West), Bhuj for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(f), 3(2)(va) and 4 of the the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and further proceedings arising thereof.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under :
2.1 In 1990, property No.4/70 was given by Lalji Rabadiya to Devraj Rabadiya through heirship. On 03.04.2007, Manji Rabadiya forged signature of Devraj and got transferred said land in his name. Upon demise of Maji Rabadiya on 24.02.2013, Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 22:31:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14423/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2025 undefined his daughter Velbai got said property in succession and she sold said property to complainant vide sale deed dated 15.11.2016.
Jethalal Rabadia made complaint before police that land of Devraj Rabadia was transferred by Manji Rabadia by forging his signature. The power of attorney of Devraj Rabadia filed application before the petitioner on 19.02.2019 to issue direction to Gram Panchayat to cancel the entry. Based upon such application, the petitioner issued order dated 07.11.2019 to Talati-cum-Mantri, Rampur to act as per Panchayats Act. On 20.05.2020, Talati-cum-Mantri, Rampar formed a report dated 20.05.2020 confirming averments made in application. The FIR in question was lodged against the accused Jethalal Rabadiya. I.O. sought addition of offence under Section 114 of IPC and Section 4 of Atrocities Act against the petitioner. Criminal Misc. Application No.818 of 2020 preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected by learned Sessions Court on 11.09.2020. Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Hriday Buch along with learned advocate Mr.Dhruv Tolia for the petitioner seeking quashment of the FIR would argue that the petitioner was serving as Taluka Development Officer, Mandvi, Kutch at the relevant time. In a dispute between three sons of Lalji Rabadiya on 07.11.2019, the petitioner in capacity of TDO, Mandvi, Kutch has passed the order and restored the possession prior to 15.02.1990 and as such, restored the possession of the property prior to issue No.8 of Resolution No.42 of Rampar Gram Pranchayat. He would submit that while doing so, the petitioner was acting in capacity of TDO and he was functioning as per power vested under the Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 22:31:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14423/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2025 undefined Gujarat Panchayats Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that he has committed offence under Section 4 of Atrocities Act read with Section 114 of IPC and cannot be arraigned as accused in the impugned FIR. Mainly upon above submissions, he would submit to quash the FIR against the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Jayesh Dave appearing for respondent No.2 - first informant would submit that he has filed complaint against the power of attorney of Devraj Rabadiya. He would further submit that the first informant has received the title of the disputed property from Ms.Velbai Manji, daughter of Manji Rabadiya. However, by order dated 07.11.2019, the TDO, Mandavi, Kutch has altered the possession of the title and restored it to the original status which has adversely affectted the civil rights of the parties. He would refer to order passed by the coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.10176 of 2021 whereby the coordinate Bench has quashed the order passed by the petitioner on the ground that such order has breached the principle of audi alteram partem. Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Dave submits to pass necessary orders.
5. While supporting the arguments of learned advocate Mr.Dave, learned APP Mr.Rohan Raval appearing for the respondent - State submits to pass necessary orders.
6. I have heard learned advocates for both sides and perused the record.
7. In an interesting development took place in the matter, what could be noticed that the first informant has filed the FIR Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 22:31:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14423/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2025 undefined against Devraj Rabadiya and others for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(2) 114 of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(f) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act, alleging that the accused of the said FIR are threatening the first informant to vacate the questioned / subject land and they have filed false complaint to the TDO and they have also uttered abusive words including in respect of caste of the first informant. During the investigation of the said FIR, I.O. obtained an order passed by TDO (Annexure-D) dated 07.11.2019 and further I.O. found that by passing such order in capacity of TDO, the present petitioner has committed offence under Section 4 of Atrocities Act read with Section 114 of IPC.
8. Let me refer to the order passed by the petitioner in capacity of TDO, which is in vernacular language Gujarati and translated into English as under :
"No.TPM/ Panchayat/ Milkat Tabdili/ Rampar/ 2019 Taluka Panchayat Office, Mandavi-Kutch Date: 07/11/2019 To, The Sarpanch / Talati-cum-Mantri, Rampat Group Gram Panchayat Rampat, Ta. Mandavi - Kutch Subject: To cancel the illegal transfer of property. Applicant: Devraj Lalji Raabadia through Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Jethalal Shamji Raabadia, R/o. Sarli Reference: Application dated 19/02/2019 of the applicant Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 22:31:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14423/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2025 undefined Apropos the subject above, the applicant states that the property of One and Half pair of veranda at Rampar village, which is registered as Property No.24/70, has been given by Lalji Mavji Raabadia to his son Devraj Lalji Raabadia during his lifetime. The same has been transferred by Rampar Group Gram Panchayat vide Issue No.8, Resolution No.42 dated 15/02/1990 of Rampar Gram Panchayat Resolution.
Moreover, the applicant states that as he stays at abroad i.e. U.K. for the purpose of business, taking advantage of his absence, his brothers (1) Mr. Manji Lalji Raabadia (2) Mr. Kantilal Lalji Raabadia in collusion with each other, have got transferred half portion of veranda in their names in the assessment by executing document on Stamp of Rs.20/- and no resolution to the effect thereof has been passed in the general meeting of the Gram Panchayat.
Thus, as the transferred property is disputed property, the action is required to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayat Act.
As the question pertaining to the said property is personal to both the brothers, they have to take action for the same on civil side.
Thus, you are hereby directed that until the issue pertaining to the said property is resolved; discussing the issue pertaining to the application dated 19/02/2019 of the applicant (Copy enclosed herewith) in its next General Meeting, the Rampur Group Grampanchayat shall enter the same in the assessment register to its original condition at Issue No.8, Resolution No.42 dated 15/02/1990 of Rampar Group Gram Panchayat.
Sd/- (Illegible) Taluka Development Officer Mandavi-Kutch Enclosure:
Application dated 19/02/1990 of the applicant."Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 22:31:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14423/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2025 undefined
9. At this juncture, I may also refer to Section 4 of the Atrocities Act as under :
"[4. Punishment for neglect of duties.--(1) Whoever, being a public servant but not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, wilfully neglects his duties required to be performed by him under this Act and the rules made thereunder, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year.
(2) The duties of public servant referred to in sub-section (1) shall include--
(a) to read out to an informant the information given orally, and reduced to writing by the officer in charge of the police station, before taking the signature of the informant;
(b) to register a complaint or a First Information Report under this Act and other relevant provisions and to register it under appropriate sections of this Act;
(c) to furnish a copy of the information so recorded forthwith to the informant;
(d) to record the statement of the victims or witnesses;
(e) to conduct the investigation and file charge sheet in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court within a period of sixty days, and to explain the delay if any, in writing;
(f) to correctly prepare, frame and translate any document or electronic record;
(g) to perform any other duty specified in this Act or the rules made thereunder:
Provided that the charges in this regard against the public servant shall be booked on the recommendation of an administrative enquiry.
(3) The cognizance in respect of any dereliction of duty referred to in sub-section (2) by a public servant shall be taken by the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 22:31:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14423/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2025 undefined and shall give direction for penal proceedings against such public servant.]"
10. In order to attract the punishment stated in Section 4 of the Atrocities Act, the prosecution is prima facie required to prove that person being a public servant and not member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe willfully neglects his duty required to be performed by him under the Act and rules made thereunder. In the present case, the TDO has performed his duty and hence, informed the Sarpanch, Talati-cum-Mantri of Rampara Gram Panchayat that dispute between the parties is civil dispute and therefore, until civil dispute is decided, issue No.8 of Resolution No.42 cannot be made operative and the name of the first informant cannot be entered in the revenue records. This shows performance of the duty under Section 137 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. I am failed to understand that how Annexure-D could be treated as neglect of duty required to be performed by the petitioner under the Atrocities Act. Learned APP has also failed to pointed out that how passing of order at Annexure-D can be treated as willful neglect of the duty required to be performed under the Atrocities Act. It is true that order at Annexure-D passed by the petitioner has been quashed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.10176 of 2021, however, while quashing the impugned order, the coordinate Bench believed that the order passed by the petitioner is without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner therein i.e. the first informant and therefore, the principle of audi alteram partem has been breached. The finding of the coordinate Bench in Special Civil Application No.10176 of 2021 reads as under :
Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 22:31:10 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14423/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2025 undefined "5. After hearing learned advocates for the parties and perusing the material placed on record, it transpires that there is no notice issued prior to passing of the order dated 7.11.2019 by TDO and the subsequent resolution which is passed on the basis of that order and therefore prima facie, it is found that the impugned order passed by respondent no.3-TDO is without affording opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner though the property is in the name of the present petitioner and his name is entered into revenue record as there is already sale deed existing in favour of the present petitioner. Moreover, it is also not clear from the order that under which provision, the TDO has exercised his power and it is also found doubtful whether TDO can decide such dispute between the parties which is the subject matter of the present petition."
11. By no means passing of the order at Annexure-D by the present petitioner can be treated as neglect of duty required to be performed under the Atrocities Act. The I.O. in casual and cavalier manner without understanding the provisions of law filed the application for adding offence under Section 4 of the Atrocities Act read with Section 114 of IPC against the present petitioner and also arraigned the present petitioner as accused in the impugned FIR.
12. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B. Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the proposition of law, which reads as under:-
"(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 ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 22:31:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14423/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2025 undefined under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the code.
(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 S.155(2) of the Code.
(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 bare engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the institution 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 malafide 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."
13. Yet in another case in Mohammad Wajid and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others - 2023 (0) AIJEL-SC 72172, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"24. 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.Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 22:31:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14423/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2025 undefined
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.
25. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive language is used intentionally and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to commit an offence under the law, the case is not taken away from the purview of the Section merely because the insulted person did not actually break the peace or commit any offence having exercised selfcontrol or having been subjected to abject terror by the offender. 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.
26. 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 Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 22:31:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14423/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2025 undefined 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 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 King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:-
"To constitute an offence under Section 504, I.P.C. it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the other party to lose his temper and say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as well as deeds." (Emphasis supplied)
27. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. 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.
28. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not under Section 504 of the IPC. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC can also be looked at from a different perspective. In the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is that abusive language was used by the accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR. One of the essential elements, as discussed above, 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.
Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 22:31:10 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14423/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2025 undefined
29. However, as observed earlier, the entire case put up by the first informant on the face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated. At this stage, we may refer to the parameters laid down by this Court for quashing of an FIR in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). The parameters are:-
"(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 FIR 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 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 Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 22:31:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14423/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2025 undefined 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."
In our opinion, the present case falls within the parameters Nos.1, 5 and 7 resply referred to above.
30. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings 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. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 22:31:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/14423/2020 ORDER DATED: 17/03/2025 undefined initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."
14. For the foregoing reasons, the questioned FIR since found to be manifestly filed with malafide motive and to settle personal vengeance, it deserves to be dismissed by allowing the present petition. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned FIR registered as CR No.11205006200313 of 2020 registered with Gadhshisha Police Station, Kutch (West), Bhuj for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)
(s), 3(1)(f), 3(2)(va) and 4 of the the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and further proceedings arising thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioner herein. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI, J) GAURAV J THAKER Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 22:31:10 IST 2025