Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
Snehaben Ishanbhai Gandhi – Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Special Criminal Application No. 8704 of 2017
Decided On : 23-01-2019
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 143, 147, 394, 323, 504, 506(2) – Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(1)(r), (s), (zc) and 3(2)(va) – Seeking quash of FIR – Held, It is not in dispute that the F.I.R. has been registered on 06.11.2017 for the alleged incident occurred on the night of 05.11.2017. Indubitably, the same will be governed by the amended provision of section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act, wherein the expression “on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe” instead of expression “knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.” The Apex Court in the case of Asharfi Versus State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) has held that “Thus, after the amendment, mere knowledge of the accused that the person upon whom the offence is committed belongs to SC/ST community suffices to bring home the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.” The facts of the present case suggest that the petitioners were having the knowledge that the first informant was a member of the schedule caste and schedule tribe since they were his neighbours and are well acquainted with him and his family members. Hence, the offence punishable under section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act registered against the petitioners does not call for any interference in exercise of the powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C – Petition dismissed
Facts of the Case:
Respondent no. 2-the first informant has filed the impugned F.I.R. alleging, inter alia, that the mother of respondent no. 2 got married to one Fakirbhai Katara, after the death of father of respondent no. 2. It is the case of respondent no. 2 that house of the accused Ishaan Gandhi is situated next to the house of the mother of respondent no. 2, where the accused Ishaan Gandhi was running his factory. It is alleged that the stepfather of respondent no. 2 had given complaints before Vadodara Municipal Corporation and the court about the nuisance on the part of the accused Ishaan Gandhi. It is alleged that after inquiry into the said complaints, the authority had put a seal on the premise of the accused-Ishaan Gandhi on 03.11.2017. It is alleged that on 05.11.2017, when the respondent no. 2 went to his mother’s house at that time one Bhupendrabhai, who is the domestic helper of the co-accused Ishaan Gandhi called him and informed about respondent no. 2. It is further alleged that the petitioners and co-accused went to the house of the mother of respondent no. 2 and abused them in the name of their caste by using filthy language and allegedly, petitioner no. 1 and co-accused Ishaan Gandhi hit respondent no. 2 and thereafter, co-accused Ishaan Gandhi gave bites to the mother of the respondent no. 2
Finding of the Court:
It is not in dispute that the F.I.R. has been registered on 06.11.2017 for the alleged incident occurred on the night of 05.11.2017. Indubitably, the same will be governed by the amended provision of section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act, wherein the expression “on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe” instead of expression “knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.” The Apex Court in the case of Asharfi Versus State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) has held that “Thus, after the amendment, mere knowledge of the accused that the person upon whom the offence is committed belongs to SC/ST community suffices to bring home the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.” The facts of the present case suggest that the petitioners were having the knowledge that the first informant was a member of the schedule caste and schedule tribe since they were his neighbours and are well acquainted with him and his family members. Hence, the offence punishable under section 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act registered against the petitioners does not call for any interference in exercise of the powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
1. In the present writ petition, the petitioners seek quashing of F.I.R. being C.R. No. I-225 of 2017 registered with Manjalpur Police Station, Vadodara City, District Vadodara for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 394, 323, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) as well as sections 3(1)(r), (s), (zc) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Atrocities Act) as well as all consequential proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. by exercising powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 (the Cr.P.C.).
2. The facts of the case as mentioned in the memo of the application are as under:
2.1 Respondent no. 2-the first informant has filed the impugned F.I.R. alleging, inter alia, that the mother of respondent no. 2 got married to one Fakirbhai Katara, after the death of father of respondent no. 2. It is the case of respondent no. 2 that house of the accused Ishaan Gandhi is situated next to the house of the mother of respondent no. 2, where the accused Ishaan Gandhi was running his factory. It is alleged that the stepfather of respondent no. 2 had given complaints before Vadodara Municipal Corporation and the court about the nuisance on the part of the accused Ishaan Gandhi. It is alleged that after inquiry into the said complaints, the authority had put a seal on the premise of the accused-Ishaan Gandhi on 03.11.2017. It is alleged that on 05.11.2017, when the respondent no. 2 went to his mother’s house at that time one Bhupendrabhai, who is the domestic helper of the co-accused Ishaan Gandhi called him and informed about respondent no. 2. It is further alleged that the petitioners and co-accused went to the house of the mother of respondent no. 2 and abused them in the name of their caste by using filthy language and allegedly, petitioner no. 1 and co-accused Ishaan Gandhi hit respondent no. 2 and thereafter, co-accused Ishaan Gandhi gave bites to the mother of the respondent no. 2 and caused injury to her. It is further alleged that co-accused Ishaan Gandhi snatched away the gold chain from the neck of the mother of respondent no. 2 and, the accused threatened respondent no. 2 and his mother with dire consequences and thus, thereby committed the alleged offences. With the aforesaid and other allegations the FIR is filed against the petitioners.
3. Learned advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar for the petitioners submitted that in fact the allegations in the impugned F.I.R. are absolutely false and the petitioners have not committed the alleged offences. It was submitted that the impugned F.I.R. has been filed with a view to pressurize the petitioners. Learned advocate further submitted that none of the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out against the petitioners.
3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that according to the basic ingredients of the provisions of sections 3(1)(r)(s) and (zc) of the Atrocities Act, the first informant ought to have alleged that the first informant i.e. respondent No. 2 was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the petitioners-original accused with an intention to humiliate in a place within “public view” and in the present case, even on plain reading of the F.I.R., the said basic ingredient of the Atrocities Act are missing since no such allegation is made in the F.I.R. Also, it was submitted that on bare reading of the F.I.R. it does not transpire that the petitioners have committed any act or threatened the respondent no. 2 of social or economic boycott and committed any offence specified in the schedule against a person belonging to a Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe or property belonging to member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe.
3.2 In support of his submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar has placed reliance on the order dated 13.12.2018 rendered by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 27478 of 2017 and has contended that this Court whi
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
