Gujarat High Court
Sambhaji Pandurang Nikam vs State Of Gujarat on 18 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/647/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/03/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 647 of 2020
==========================================================
SAMBHAJI PANDURANG NIKAM & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS M BAROT(2964) SENIOR COUNSEL WITH MS RIYA PATEL for
the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
NANAVATI & NANAVATI(1933) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED THRU CONCERNED POLICE STATION for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MANAN MAHETA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 18/03/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of rule for respondent No.1 - State.
2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), the applicant seeks quashing of the FIR being C.R.No.11192008200008 registered with Bavla Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506(1) and 114 of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and further proceedings arising thereof.
3. Referring to the FIR, learned Senior Counsel Mr.Barot would submit that the alleged offence did not take place within public domain. He would further submit that according to FIR, the incident took place within the office of the accused and Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 23:01:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/647/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/03/2025 undefined therefore, there is clear bar of Section 3(1)(x) of Atrocities Act are attracted in the present case. He would further submit that on plain reading of FIR, it does not indicate that the first informant has mentioned in FIR that he belongs to a particular caste i.e. Scheduled Caster or Scheduled Tribe and having knowledge of the same, the accused has abused him and insulted him for the caste. Therefore, since ingredients of offence under Section 3(1)
(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act are not satisfied, the offence may be quashed. He would further submit that essential ingredients of offence under Section 506(1) of IPC are also not made out as it is non-cognizable offence. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Barot referred to the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Sandip @ Sanjay @ Tako Chhaganbhai Ughreja vs. State of Gujarat and another, being Criminal Misc. Application No.15188 of 2014. Upon above submissions, he would submit to quash the FIR.
4. The respondent No.2 appears as Party-in-person before the Court and supports the FIR.
5. Learned APP Mr.Manan Maheta appearing for the respondent State vehemently opposes the grant of prayers made in the petition and submits to dismiss the petition.
6. I have heard learned advocates for both sides.
7. Let me refer the necessary contents of the FIR which reads as under :
"In this regard, K.C.Rao Sir of the company pressurized me to accept that I have written the comment and Sambhaji Sir and K.C.Rao Sir gave me threats that they will file complaint regarding the said writing. They told Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 23:01:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/647/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/03/2025 undefined me that they will spend around two to thre lakh rupees and they will fit me in that case and they told they they will how I would do my job. They also told me that I belong to lower caste and asked me to go home. I came home and I kept on thinking whole night that even though I have not committed any offence, the accused will fix me and therefore, I went to bazaar at Bavla and purchased a bottle of poison and I wrote the facts of the incident in one notebook and went on my motorcyle to village Chhabasar, where I wrote the entire incident in the notebook. Then I went to field near Shaktipura which is near to my village and I administered poison myself and due to that, I kept on vomiting. When my mother asked me about the reason, I told her that I administered poison myself and she took me to Bavla in rickshaw and I lost my consciousness. When I gained my consciousness, I was told that I had been admitted in Shrey Hospital at Bavla."
8. In the FIR, following offences under the Atrocities Act are registered against the accused :
"3. Punishments for offences atrocities.-- [(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--
*** *** ***
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--
**** *** *** [(va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;]"
Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 23:01:08 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/647/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/03/2025 undefined
9. The basic necessity to prove the offence under the aforesaid sections are intentional insult or intimidation of the complainant with intent to humiliate him as member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe at any place within the public view and also to abuse him.
10. At this juncture, I may refer to Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act as under :
"3. Punishments for offences atrocities.-- [(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--
*** *** ***
(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."
11. In Swaran Singh vs. State - 2008 (8) SCC 435, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 28 held as under :
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a `Chamar') when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression `place within public view' with the expression `public Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 23:01:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/647/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/03/2025 undefined place'. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies."
12. Ordinarily public place means a place which is owned or leased by the Government or municipality or local body. In context to the FIR, it is stated that when first informant attended the office of the accused, he was scolded by certain words and some filthy words were used within the premises of the office of the petitioners.
13. I may refer to the case of Dinesh @ Buddha v. State of Rajasthan - (2006) 3 SCC 771, wherein the Supreme Court observed in paras-14 and 15 as under;
"14. At this juncture it is necessary to take note of Section 3 of the Atrocities Act. As the Preamble to the Act provides 'the Act has been enacted to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The expression 'atrocities' is defined in Section 2 of the Atrocities Act to mean an offence punishable under Section 3. The said provision so far relevant reads as follows:
"3(2)(v): Punishments for offences of atrocities -
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, -
xxx xxx xxx
(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 23:01:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/647/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/03/2025 undefined member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;
xxx xxx xxx"
15. Sine qua non for application of Section 3(2)(v) is that an offence must have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the instant case no evidence has been led to establish this requirement. It is not case of the prosecution that the rape was committed on the victim since she was a member of Scheduled Caste. In the absence of evidence to that effect, Section 3(2)(v) has no application. Had Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act been applicable then by operation of law, the sentence would have been imprisonment for life and fine."
14. In the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. - (2008) 12 SCC 531, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :
"6. In the instant case, the allegation 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."
15. The place of the office of the petitioners is not in public view. It is not an ordinary place of public view or place having public domain. This is the one aspect. The another aspect is that Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 23:01:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/647/2020 ORDER DATED: 18/03/2025 undefined in the FIR neither there is an averment that first informant was member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe nor there is any allegation that offence alleged to have been committed on account of the first informant being member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The offence under Section 506(1) of IPC is also not made out as it is non-cognizable offence. While taking the assistance of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Karuppudayar vs. State Rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy and others - 2025 SCC Online SC 215 and perusing the aforesaid aspects vis-a-vis FIR, I am of the opinion that putting accused for trial for the offence would be abuse of process of law.
16. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following order :
16.1 In the result, the petition is allowed. The FIR being C.R.No.11192008200008 registered with Bavla Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506(1) and 114 of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) 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 petitioners herein. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
16.2 The request of learned APP to recover the amount of compensation granted to the complainant is also acceded to.
(J. C. DOSHI, J) GAURAV J THAKER Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by GAURAV J THAKER(HC00951) on Wed Mar 19 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 19 23:01:08 IST 2025