Point of Law: A charge-sheet filed at the dictate of somebody other than the police would amount to abuse of the process of law and hence the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 to the extent of the abuse.

ORDER :

Copies of five different complaints filed by the respondent No.2 are taken on record. 1. Rule in Special Criminal Application No. 64 of 2016 & Criminal Misc. Application No. 22354 of 2015. Mr.Valimohammed Pathan, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr. H.K.Patel, learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent -State in both these applications.

2. These group of three petitions arising from the common criminal complaint lodged before the Mehsana Taluka Police Station being C.R.No.I-268 of 2015 filed by the respondent No.2- Sanjaykumar Jethabhai Parmar against present applicants-accused persons, who have approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Articles 14 and 16 r/w. Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure with a request to quash and set aside the impugned complaint.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the respective applicants as well as learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 and learned APP for the respondent-State have requested to dispose of these three petitions with common order, as three petitions are arising from the same FIR. Hence, the common order is passed.

4. Heard Mr.Yogendra Thakore, learned advocate for the applicant in Special Criminal Application No. 64 of 2016; Mr. K.S.Kotai, learned advocate for the applicant in Cri. Misc. Application No. 22354 of 2015; Mr.Jigar Gadhavi, learned advocate for the applicant in Cri. Misc. Application No. 2574 of 2017 and Mr.Valimohammed Pathan for respondent No.2 and Mr. H.K.Patel, learned APP for the respondent -State in these petitions.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Yogendra Thakore, learned advocate appearing for the applicant in Special Criminal Application No. 64 of 2016 that completely bogus FIR was filed against the present applicant. It is submitted that the applicant namely Thakore Jagaji Chenaji, on 6th November, 2015, was present in the Court premises of Mehsana District Court and he had also given an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehsana, pursuant to the notice issued against him being surety of the accused namely Prajapati Gunvantbhai in a criminal case giving assurance that the accused will remain present before the Court. Learned advocate has referred pursis produced at annexure “B” dated 6th November, 2015. It is further submitted that the applicant is falsely implicated in the said incident with malafide intention. It is further submitted that in the entire complaint, it is nowhere stated that the applicant was not a member of Schedule Caste or Schedule tribe and he intentionally insulted or with intent to humiliate the complainant. It is further submitted that when the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, the continuation of the complaint would totally be unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code would not attract in the present case, as there was no criminal intimidation on the part of the applicant. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence, as has been defined under Section 503 of Indian Penal Code and Section 506 of Indian Penal Code are absent in the complaint itself. It is further submitted that the complainant is a habitual of lodging such type of complaint against members who are not from schedule caste and schedule tribe. He has produced five different complaints registered against different persons by the same complainant under the provisions of Atrocities Act. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has misused process of law and false case was registered against the applicant. In support of his arguments, he has referred the order passed in Special Criminal Application No. 1785 of 2017 dated 4th August 2021 and requested to quash and set aside the impugned complaint.

6 Learned advocate Mr.Jigar Gadhavi appearing for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application