Back
2020 Supreme(Guj) 647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.
Dahyabhai Prabhubhai Koli (Patel) - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat - Respondent
R/Criminal Appeal No. 2537 of 2019
Decided On : 31-08-2020
For the Appellant : Mr. N.K. Majmudar.
For the Respondent: Ms. Delnaz B. Shethna, Ms. Krishna R. Rawal, Mr. J.K. Shah, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
IMPORTANT POINT
The department of Government has in a circular directed to use the word ‘Halpati’ or ‘Talavia’ in place of ‘Dubla’
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code ,1860 - Sections 504, 506, 114 - Criminal Procedure Code Section 438 - Atrocity Act 1989 - Section 18 - Section 3 - Section 14 – Anti Social work - Castes and Tribes - Insult or to intimidate complainant - The word "Dubala" - Intent to humiliate in a place with public view - Rejection of anticipatory bail - Law of precedent is clear on the issue that if there is a slight change in the fact or one additional fact would make a world of difference in applying the precedent. Resultantly, even after considering the said decision also, this Court is not satisfied with the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellants.
Fact of the Case
Present appeal are that complainant, wife is Sarpanch of village and when she was doing inspection work of a public road village, appellant and used atrocious words in presence of public to respondent-complainant and conveyed that she belonging to community, what development can be made by her and thereby threat was administered present appellants and when people gathered in village, appellants went away on their vehicles - Since this utterances were made in public while discharging public duty and threat was administered and insulted in public by using atrocious words, a complaint came to be lodged, being before Police Station, Surat for offences punishable .
Finding of the Court
Pronouncement of judgment, learned advocate for appellants, has requested that since right from beginning, interim relief is operative, appellants would like to approach higher forum - So, for some reasonable period, operation of present order may not be effected by continuing interim protection - After initial objection against this extension of time, request is left it open to Court’s discretion - Accordingly, Court is of opinion that from beginning, interim relief is operating in present proceedings, and while disposing of quashing petition also, time was granted, Court is inclined to consider request in part and accordingly, two weeks’ time is granted to appellants so as to enable them to approach higher forum.
Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Present Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Atrocity Act’) against the order dated 24.12.2019 passed by learned 7th Additionally Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No.7315 of 2019, whereby the request for seeking anticipatory bail came to be rejected in connection with the FIR, being C.R. No.II-34 of 2017 registered before Mangrol (Surat Rural) Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(m)(r)(s) and 3(2)(5a) of the Atrocity Act.
2. The facts, in brief, which have given rise to the present appeal are that the complainant, i.e. Daxaben, wife of Navinbhai Govanbhai Vasava, is the Sarpanch of the village and when she was doing inspection work of a public road of the village, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 used atrocious words in presence of the public to the respondent-complainant and conveyed that she belonging to ‘Dubla’ community, what development can be made by her and thereby threat was administered by the present appellants and when the people gathered in the village, the appellants went away on their vehicles. Since this utterances were made in public while discharging public duty and threat was administered and insulted in the public by using atrocious words, a complaint came to be lodged, being C.R. No.II-34 of 2017 before Mangrol (Surat Rural) Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1) (m)(r)(s) and 3(2)(5a) of the Atrocity Act.
3. The appellants upon such filing of the complaint, raised an issue that the ingredients of the offences are prima facie not established and thereby initially, preferred a petition for quashing before the High Court, being Criminal Misc. Application No.6223 of 2017 and by raising multiple contentions about non-applicability of the provisions of the Act, a request was made to quash the complaint. But, after hearing both the sides at length, the said petition for quashing came to be withdrawn vide order dated 11.12.2019 and the interim order which was granted earlier on 6.3.2017 was vacated. Of-course for a period of one week, the said protection was extended.
4. It appears from the record that after disposal of the petition for quashing, the present appellants appeared to have rushed down for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (‘the Code’ for short) before learned District and Sessions Judge, (Special Atrocity Court) at Surat, which application came up for consideration before learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, who by order dated 24.12.2019 was pleased to dismiss the same, which has given rise to present Criminal Appeal before this Court.
5. It further appears that after the present alleged commission of the offence, some other appellants of same village have rushed down to the house of the Sarpanch in the night hours and administered threat and repeated the said offence, which has given rise to filing of a complaint by husband Navinbhai, which was registered C.R. No.I-10 of 2017 and in the said complaint also, a petition for quashing was filed by raising several contentions but, the same was also dismissed by the Court and in the similar way, after disposal of the quashing petition, in the said complaint also, relevant accused have filed an appeal for anticipatory bail, being Criminal Appeal No.2534 of 2019. Both these criminal appeals came up for consideration before this Court and conjointly with consent of learned advocates, both the appeals were taken up for hearing.
6. Learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar appearing on behalf of the appellants in the present appeal has also practically made a joint submissions and at the outset, has contended that prima facie offence is not made out. It has further been vehemently contended that there is no embargo for con
