Gujarat High Court
Prashant Sonaji Mesra (Thakor) vs State Of Gujarat on 4 August, 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3474/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 3474 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
PRASHANT SONAJI MESRA (THAKOR) & 2 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BA SURTI(876) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR HR PRAJAPATI(674) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. MANAN S. MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 04/08/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By filing the present Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside the FIR being II CR No. 27 of 2014 registered with Dholka Police Station.
Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 00:09:43 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3474/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2023 undefined
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Krunal Shah for learned Advocate Mr. B.A.Surti for the Applicants. He submitted that the present FIR came to be lodged against the present Applicants as they had been named as witnesses in the FIR lodged by one Ambaben Arjunbhai Thakore. In fact the Applicants have not made any phone calls to anybody as alleged in the FIR. The present FIR had been lodged by the Respondent - First Informant only with a view to pressurize them not to depose against him in the FIR lodged by Ambaben. Subsequently, the Respondent and the said Ambaben have settled the matter interse. Thus, there is no point in continuing with the present FIR against the present Applicants. He also submitted that the ingredients for the offence alleged against the present Applicants in the FIR are not made out upon a plain reading of the FIR. He submitted that the present FIR has been lodged only after this Court has ordered to transfer the investigation of the offence in FIR lodged by the said Ambaben. He therefore submitted to allow the present Application and quash and set aside the FIR in question.
3. The Application is opposed by learned APP Mr. Manan S. Mehta. He submitted that upon a bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that the present Applicants had one by one telephoned the witness Vasim Akram and had threatened him. He further submitted that the present Applicants had threatened the said Vasim Akarm as he was cited as a witness in the FIR lodged by Ambaben and had threatened him with dire consequences if he deposed anything against them. Thus, the offence alleged in the FIR are clearly made out against the present Applicants. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present Application.
4. Learned Advocate Ms. Nishka Prajapati for learned Advocate Mr. H.R.Prajapati appearing for Respondent No.2 has also opposed the present Application. She also submitted that that the offence alleged against the present Applicants in the FIR in question are clearly made out. She therefore Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 00:09:43 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3474/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2023 undefined submitted to dismiss the present Application.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record.
6. As per the case of prosecution, on 20.2.2014, Vasim Akram had gone to the place of the Respondent - First Informant and informed him that on 12.2.2014, he had received a phone call from Applicant No.1. The Applicant No.1 told him in the threatening tone that Gohil has been asked to be suspended and that everybody is to be taught a lesson and all the persons who are cited as witnesses are to be roped in. The FIR states that on 12.2.2014 itself another call was received by the said Vasim Akram in the evening from the present Applicant No.2. He had also threatened the said Vasim Akram to the aforesaid effect. Thereafter on 22.2.2014, a phone call was received by the said Vasim Akram from Applicant No.3 again to the aforesaid effect. It is pertinent to note that the said Vasim Akram on 20.2.2014 goes to the place of present Respondent No.2 and it is present Respondent No.2 who has lodged the FIR in question. No FIR whatsoever has been lodged by the said Vasim Akrim who allegedly received the threatening calls from the present Applicants. Moreover as per the FIR itself, the alleged incident had taken place from 30.12.2013 to 20.2.2014 whereas the FIR in question came to be lodged on 23.2.2014. Therefore, there is no explanation whatsoever in lodging the FIR in question.
7. On the basis of the opinion given by the first informant, offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 507, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the present Applicants. Section 507 of the IPC reads as under:
"507. Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication.--Whoev- er commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 00:09:43 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3474/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2023 undefined communication, or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment provided for the offence by the last preceding section."
8. Upon plain reading of the provisions of Section 507 IPC, it appears that it provides for punishment for committing an offence of criminal intimidation by a anonymous communication. Upon perusal of the entire FIR it is clear that there was no anonymous communication in the present offence. The person who received the alleged threat calls had clearly made out that those calls were allegedly made by the present Applicants and therefore those calls cannot be perceived to be anonymous calls and therefore the provision of Section 507 of IPC is not attributed in the present case.
9. Section 504 of IPC deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.
10. Upon perusal of the entire FIR, it is not clear as to how the present Applicants had insulted the said Vasim Akram with an intent to provoke breach of peace. Moreover the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC is a non- cognizable offence.
11. As per the case of prosecution, the present Applicants had threatened the said Vasim Akram because he was cited as a witness in the FIR being I-CR No. 193 of 2013 registered with Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad City by one Ambaben Arjunbhai Thakore. It has been stated at the bar that Ambaben Arjunbhai Thakore has already settled the matter with the accused in the said FIR.
Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 00:09:43 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3474/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2023 undefined
12. The record also indicates that this Court vide its order dated 12.2.2014 passed in Special Criminal Application No. 562 of 2014 has observed that it will be open for the Investigator or other competent authority to transfer the investigation to the competent police station. It is after this order was passed by this Court the present FIR came to be lodged on 23.2.2014. Thus, the present FIR appears to be nothing but an abuse of process of law and therefore in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Anr. v/s Ch. Bhajan Lal & Anr reported in 1992 AIR 604, the present FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside.
13. Under the circumstances, the present Application is allowed. The FIR being II CR No. 27 of 2014 registered with Dholka Police Station, and all other consequential proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed and set aside so far as it relates to the present Applicant. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) J.N.W Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 00:09:43 IST 2023