SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Guj) 263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.P. Thaker, J.
Anand Athabhai Chaudhari & Ors. - Applicant
Versus
State of Gujarat & Other - Respondents
R/Special Criminal Application No. 5670 of 2017
Decided On : 09-05-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr P P Majmudar
For the Respondent: Mr Gajendra P Baghel, Ms Moxa Thakkar Addl. Public prosecutor

Headnote:

Criminal Law – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Criminal Procedure Code – Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 – Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(x) – Atrocity Act – Section 14 – Seeking quash of FIR – Offence of Theft – FIR registered against the husband of respondent No.2 and others at instance of petitioner No.1, who was working as Police Sub Inspector of Limdi Police Station, alleging, inter alia, that the original accused persons named therein obstructed the public servants in performance of their duties and also beaten them under the guise that they were not able to catch the thief and caused injuries to them – Held, When the amendment has been carried out, the Special Court can take cognizance directly. As such, the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class can be said to be ousted. On perusal of the material placed on record, it is clearly found that the allegation made in the impugned complaint is regarding excessive use of force by the police, when the police went to the place of occurrence to control the mob, the members of the mob had assaulted the police – In view of the amendment made in Section 14 of the Atrocity Act, the order for taking cognizance was passed in the year 2017 is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The concerned Special Court can only take cognizance in view of the amendment in Section 14 of the Atrocity Act – Under the aforesaid circumstances, and in view of the guidelines issued in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal (supra), the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be exercised in this case. Under these circumstances, the present petition is required to be allowed – Petition is allowed. (Paras 16 to 18)

ORDER :

1. By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners seek to quash and set aside the FIR being M. Case No.2 of 2013 registered with Limdi Division Police Station, District: Dahod for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504, 506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter be referred to as “the Atrocity Act”) as well as the order of issuance of summons dated 15.02.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jhalod in Criminal Case No.169 of 2017.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 06.09.2013, one FIR being C.R.No.I-104 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 353, 362, 186 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the husband of respondent No.2 and others at the instance of petitioner No.1, who was working as Police Sub Inspector of Limdi Police Station, alleging, inter alia, that the original accused persons named therein obstructed the public servants in performance of their duties and also beaten them under the guise that they were not able to catch the thief and caused injuries to them.

2.1 It is submitted that on 06.09.2013, the husband of respondent No.2 was arrested at 21.40 hours for which the report was submitted to the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jhalod.

2.2 It is submitted that on 15.11.2013, as a counterblast of the aforesaid FIR, respondent No.2 has filed the impugned FIR alleging, inter alia, that on 06.09.2013, in the village, there were increasing incidents of theft and loot, due to which the villagers were afraid. That it was alleged that on the aforesaid date, at about 8.00 p.m., one thief had come at the house of Pravinbhai who lives in their society, and thereafter, the police were called. It is further alleged that thereafter, the police officers came to the society and since, the people from the society were not satisfied with the police, the original accused persons, who are the police officers, got excited and, thereafter, the staff from S. P. Office, Dahod, was called and, thereafter, the present accused No.1 went to back to Limdi Police Station. It is further alleged in the impugned FIR that at 10.30 p.m., on 06.09.2013, when people of the society were in their houses and at that time respondent No.2 was sitting outside her house and three police officers came in a car and the original accused No.1 and 2 came to the society and all the original accused persons abused respondent No.2 with regard to her caste and also caused injuries to her.

2.3 It is further alleged in the FIR that the original accused persons also ransacked the house of respondent No.2 and with their sticks they also beat son of respondent No.2 and took away husband of respondent No.2 and gave threats to them with dire consequences. With this allegations, the impugned FIR came to be registered pursuant to the order dated 26.09.2013 passed under Section 156(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jhalod.

2.4 It is alleged in the FIR that on 29.05.2014, a summary report was filed after the investigation and in that report, it was pointed out that the allegations in the impugned FIR with regard to beating are not at all supported and it appears that Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri Dilip Rameshchandra Agrawat, has given a statement dated 27.05.2014, wherein he has pointed out that the petitioner No.2 was present with him in Limdi Police Station at the time of the alleged offences and had not gone outside the Police Station. It is further submitted that from the statements of the witnesses, Anitaben and Manjulaben, it appears that their statements are general and vague and after the investigation there is no sufficient evidence to proceed with the matter was found and therefore the summary rep







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top