Gujarat High Court
Karsanbhai Savjibhai Rajput vs State Of Gujarat on 13 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3441 of 2016
(FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI : Sd/-
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
- √
=======================================================
KARSANBHAI SAVJIBHAI RAJPUT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR MAHARSHI PATEL for MR VIRAT G POPAT(3710) for the
Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SS TRIVEDI(3514) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOAHAM JOSHI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 13/02/2025
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 applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR being C.R. No.II-3029/2015 registered with Suigam Police Station, Banaskantha for the offences under Sections 447, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for short") and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocity Act" for short).
Page 1 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
2. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Maharshi Patel for learned advocate, Mr. Virat Popat for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for the respondent no.1 - State of Gujarat. Learned advocate, Mr. S.S. Trivedi appearing for the respondent no.2 has not remained present when the matter is taken up for hearing.
3. The gist of the FIR is that, On the day of incident i.e. on 24.12.2015, when the complainant along with his wife were present at their field, the accused came there and illegally entered into their field and stated that as to why, they are not allowing their animals for grazing, to which, the complainant had refused, therefore, the accused got excited and started abusing them and also threatened with dire consequences. These are the some and substance of the FIR.
4. Learned advocate, Mr. Maharshi Patel submitted that the impugned FIR is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law and is filed with a sole intent to harass the applicant herein. He submitted that in fact, the alleged incident occurred on 24.12.2015, for which, FIR has been lodged on 26.12.2015, which is nothing but a pressurize tactics adopted by the respondent no.2 herein because of ongoing dispute between the parties. He submitted that in fact, prior to registration of the impugned FIR, the respondent no.2 herein and his family members had administered threats to the Page 2 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined applicant that they will institute complaint against them invoking the provision of the Atrocity Act, therefore, the applicant was seriously apprehending about the said fact, therefore, he made detailed representation before the authority concerned on 07.12.2015 i.e. much prior to registration of the impugned FIR, copy of which is produced on record and if the Hon'ble Court would make a cursory glance upon the contents of the said representation, in that event, it would be found out that since last number of years, approach road to reach the field of the applicant was available, however, the respondent no.2 herein has constructed one small hut on the way, therefore, the disputes were cropped up between the parties.
5. Learned advocate further submitted that as stated above, just to pressurize the applicant herein, aforesaid FIR has been lodged, however as soon as the applicant came to know about the registration of the impugned FIR, they have made detailed representation to the concerned Investigating Officer inter alia stating that on the day of incident, the applicant herein was not available at the place of occurrence but in fact, he was out of station. He further submitted that that the applicant herein is working as driver in one Travels Company and was going towards Surat and at the time of alleged incident as mentioned in the impugned FIR, the applicant had taken rest at Page 3 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined particular place, where CCTV is installed and if the CCTV footages are recovered by the concerned IO, in that event, correct fact would have come on surface that on the day and at the time of incident, the applicant was not available at the place of occurrence. He further submitted that in the said representation, request was made to collect CDR of the mobile of the applicant so that exact location can be found out. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that in fact, the applicant is wrongly roped in the aforesaid offence with oblique motive though the applicant is not at all connected with the alleged commission of crime, therefore, the prosecution launched against the applicant is required to be quashed and set aside.
6. At this stage, learned advocate has place reliance upon the order dated 08.01.2016 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.1686/2014 and submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in identical case, has considered the provision of the Atrocity Act and quashed the FIR impugned therein by allowing the said quashing petition.
7. Learned advocate has also put reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 as well as in case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 :
1960 Cri LJ 1239 and submitted that considering the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Page 4 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined Court in the aforesaid decisions, the impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside. It is, therefore, urged that the present application may be allowed.
8. Per contract, learned APP, Mr. Joshi has opposed the grant of present application with a vehemence and submitted that the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out and the investigation carried out so far clearly goes on to show that the applicant has committed alleged offences. He submitted that pursuant to registration of the impugned FIR, the investigation was put into motion and during the course of investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the witnesses, visited the place of occurrence, drawn necessary panchnama and also completed required formalities. He referred to the statements of the witnesses and submitted that the involvement of the applicant is clearly found out from the statements of the witnesses. He, however candidly submitted before this Court that the statement of independent witness has not been recorded by the IO as nobody was available at the place of occurrence. He further submitted that so far as the representation made by the applicant about his non-presence at the place of occurrence is concerned, the concerned IO had verified the said aspect by recording the statements of the ownership of the Travels Company, conductor of the vehicle, passengers and also collected the CCTV Page 5 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined footages of a particular place at Surat, where the applicant had taken rest and on the strength of the said material collected by the concerned IO, he jumped to a conclusion that at the time and at the place of occurrence, the applicant was not found available. He, however, referred to the statement of wife of the respondent no.2 herein and submitted that involvement of the applicant is found out as she has reiterated the facts as narrated by the respondent no.2 herein in the body of the complaint. It is, therefore, urged that the present application may not be allowed.
9. No other submissions have been canvassed by the parties.
10. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through the material and evidence available on record, the staple question arises for consideration as to whether the FIR is liable to be quashed and set aside in exercise of extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of the Code.
11. 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 Page 6 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 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 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 any offence and make out a case against the accused;Page 7 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined (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 spite him due to private and personal grudge."
12. 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;
Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
(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."
13. 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 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, it is found out that none of the ingredients to constitute the offences alleged are spelt out.
14. Bare perusal of the contents of the impugned FIR Page 9 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined coupled with the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties, some facts, which are not in dispute, are emerged, which are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the present application. The impugned FIR is lodged on 26.12.2015 for the so-called incident of 24.12.2015 and thus, there is delay of two days in registration of impugned FIR. Further allegation and accusation against the applicant and other is that they had come at the field of the respondent no.2 and created hue and cry but when the respondent no.2 had asked for pardon, they got excited and used abusive language and also threatened them with dire consequences. However if we look at the facts of the case, it is evident that dispute is going on between the parties with regard to the approach road and prior to registration of the impugned FIR, the applicant had given written complaint before the Police Sub Inspector, Suigam Police Station as the threats were given to them to involve in false case of atrocity. Not only that, after registration of the impugned FIR, detailed representation is made to the concerned IO to collect CCTV footage of a particular place at Surat as it is the specific case of the applicant that he was not available at the place of occurrence when the so-called incident had taken place and pursuant thereto, statements of persons concerned have been recorded and also CCTV footage has been recovered, which Page 10 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined clearly goes on to show that the applicant was not found available at the place of occurrence and he was at Surat.
15. Now, I would like to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apxe Court in the case of Vikram Johar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in AIR 2019 SC 2109, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 504 IPC, the basic ingredients are required to be satisfied, which are (i) intentional insult, (ii) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (iii) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The following ingredients are required to be satisfied so as to invoke the provisions of Section 506. (i) that the accused threatened some person, (ii) that such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of some one in whom he was interested; and (iii) that he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat. A plain reading of the allegations in the FIR in question, in the opinion of this Court, does not satisfy all the aforesaid basic and essential ingredients so Page 11 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined as to invoke the provisions of Section 504 and 506(2) of the IPC.
16. It is well settled that where the Court finds that the allegations made in the impugned FIR, 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 and/or 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/her due to private and personal grudge, in that event, the Court should exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code by quashing the FIR/complaint. Here in the instant case, from the bare reading of the contents of the FIR in question, it transpires that no offence much less the offence under Section and 506 are made out against the applicants accused.
17. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Dineshbhai @ Mukeshbhai Jitabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., vide judgment and order dated 05.04.2016 passed in Special Criminal Application No.4481 of 2014, observed and held as under:
"14 The second question that falls for my consideration is whether the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the I.P.C. could be said to have been made out.
15 Section 504 of the I.P.C. contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to Page 12 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 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 self control or having been subjected to abject terror by the offender. In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, I.P.C., 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. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, I.P.C. if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to 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 Page 13 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 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, I.P.C. 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 In Guranditta v. Emperror, AIR 1930 Lah 344 (2): (32 Cri. LJ 62), it was observed that in dealing with a case under Section 504, I.P.C. the court should try to find out what in the ordinary circumstances would have been the effect of abusive language used. Pichai Pillai v. Ramaswamy Ayyangar (1941) 42 Cri. LJ 48) (Mad.) relied on by the learned Magistrate is no authority for any proposition that no offence is committed under Section 504, I.P.C. by the accused if he uses abusive language against the complainant. In that case there was a discussion between the accused Bill Collector and the complainant in regard to the amount due by the complainant towards tax collectable by the Bill Collector. In the course of that discussion, the Bill Collector shouted against the complainant saying Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined shameless fellow, I will shoe you. The details of the discussion and the exact circumstances leading to the shouting by the accused are not available from the brief judgement reported. It is also not known as to where exactly the occurrence took place in that case. (vide Karumanchi Veerangaiah vs. Katta Mark & Ors., 1976 Cr. LJ 1690) 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 Page 15 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined 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:-
"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 Page 16 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
(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 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."
18. It is required to be mentioned that it is alleged that the accused have used abusive language upon the respondent no.2 and his wife. Thus according to the respondent no.2 herein, the accused have committed offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act, which reads as under, Section 3(1)(x) reads as under :
"3. (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-
Page 17 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined (i) to (ix) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;"
19. In view of basic basic ingredients of Section 3(1)
(x) of the Atrocity Act, the respondent no.2 ought to have alleged that the accused were not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and despite that, he was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with an intent to humiliate the respondent no.2 in a place within the public purview. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the FIR, in that event, permitting such an FIR to be investigated by the police under the Atrocity Act would be nothing but the abuse of process of law. Therefore in my considered opinion, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act are spelt out.
20. Not only that, this Court while dealing with similar case falling under the provision of the IPC as well as under the Atrocity Act i.e. in Criminal Misc. Application No.16420/2019 by an order dated 10.07.2024, has considered the facts of the case and quashed the FIR therein. Paragraph Nos.9 to 15 are as under, "9. The above takes me to consider whether the provisions of the Atrocities Act will have any application to the facts of this case. As usual, the complainant being the member of Page 18 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined the Scheduled Caste have a very powerful potent weapon in his hand in the form of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. There cannot be a better case than the one on hand of gross abuse of the provisions of the Atrocities Act. The F.I.R. on hand is an indication of the extent the members of the Scheduled Castes can go to abuse the provisions of the Atrocities Act, which are otherwise meant for the protection of the underprivileged and downtrodden class of the society.
10. The SC/ST Act was enacted as the laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and provisions of the Indian Penal Code was found inadequate to arrest the commission of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. A specific legislation to check and deter crimes committed by the non-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe members thus became necessary. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act reads:
"Despite various measures to improve the socio economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled tribes, they remain vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights.
They are subjected to various
offences, indignities,
humiliations and harassment.
They have, in several brutal
incidents, been deprived of
their life and property.
Serious crimes are committed
against them for various
historical, social and economic
reasons.
2. Because of the awareness created
Page 19 of 23
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
amongst the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes through spread of education, etc., they are trying to assert their rights and this is not being taken very kindly by the others. When they assert their rights and resist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutory minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded forced labour, the vested interests try to cow them down and terrorize them. When the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their self- respect or honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty. Occupation and cultivation of even the Government allotted land by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is resented and more often these people become victims of attacks by the vested interests. Of late, there has been an increase in the disturbing trend of commission of certain atrocities like making the Scheduled Caste persons eat inedible substances like human excreta and attacks on the mass, killing of helpless Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and rape of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes."
11. Section 2 of the Act defines the expression 'atrocity' which is as follows :
"atrocity" means an offence punishable under Section 3."
12. The expression 'atrocity' finds place in the title of the Act itself. It is capable of indicating at the nature of the legislation intended to be undertaken by Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined the Act.
13, In Webster's Third International Dictionary (at page 139), one of the meanings ascribed to the word 'atrocity' is "the quality of state of being atrocious"
while the word 'atrocious' has been ascribed, inter alia, the following meaning :
"(1) marked by or given to extreme wickedness;
(2) marked by or given to extreme brutality or cruelty;
(3) outrageous; violating the bounds of common decency; uncivilized, barbaric;
(4) extremely painful; marked by intense distress;
(5) of such a kind as to fill with fright or dismay."
14. Considering the true and correct object of the Act coupled with the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses, as discussed above, if I still hold that the provisions of the Atrocities Act would apply, then the same will be nothing, but mockery of justice. Even the allegations levelled in the FIR itself do not attract the provisions of the Atrocities Act.
15. Learned senior advocate Mr. Nanavati has relied upon the decision in the case of Gorige Pentaiah (supra), which in my considered opinion, is squarely applicable to the present case. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus;
"In the instant case, the allegation Page 21 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined of respondent No.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused- appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law."
21. I have also gone through the order dated 08.01.2016 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.1686/2015, upon which reliance has been placed by learned advocate for the applicant. Thus in view of the above facts and in view of the ratio enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in the aforesaid decisions, I am of the opinion that from bare perusal of the FIR itself, none of the ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are spelt out. Therefore, the present application deserves to be allowed.
Page 22 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined
22. In the result, the present application is allowed.
The impugned FIR being C.R. No.II-3029/2015 registered with Suigam Police Station, Banaskantha and all other consequential proceedings arising out of said FIR are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant.
23. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.) Gautam Page 23 of 23 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 17 22:25:00 IST 2025