JUDGMENT :

1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant - original accused prays for the following main reliefs:-

“(b) To quash and set aside the impugned FIR (Annexure A) being II-C.R.No. 34/2019 registered with Udyognagar Police Station, District Porbandar;

(c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this application, to stay further proceedings of impugned FIR (Annexure A) being II-C.R.No. 34/2019 registered with Udyognagar Police Station, District Porbandar.”

2. The brief facts of the prosecution are that, the complainant is doing electric work and runs his livelihood. As per the instructions of Mr. Chhaganbhai, who is a sub- contractor at Sardar Patel Nevalbase, Bokhira, the complainant started electric work at the Nevalbase. That on 31.03.2019, at about 9:30 a.m, when the complainant gone for taking electric goods which stored in the pump house at a camp, he went behind the pump house for urinating and upon seeing Virambhai (applicant herein), who was sitting in the office, the complainant went back without urinating, but at that time, one person came there and asked the complainant to meet Virambhai in the office. Therefore, the complainant went to the office of Virambhai, at that time, Virambhai slapped the complainant and uttered filthy words relating to his caste. Hence, FIR came to be filed by the complainant against the applicant for the offence under Sections 323 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(5)(a) of the Atrocities Act.

3. Heard Ms. Shweta Lodha for Mr. Virat Popat, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Soham Joshi, learned APP for the respondent State and Mr. Jaimin Gandhi, learned counsel for the complainant.

4. Ms. Shweta Lodha, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the impugned FIR is nothing, but an abuse of process of law as from the contents of the FIR, it reveals that no offence is made out. She further submitted that no any hurt is caused by the applicant. She has drawn my attention towards the contents of the FIR, whereby, the complainant has not stated that which words were uttered and the complainant himself has introduced the accused at the time of incident that he is coming from a particular community that means Vankar. She has further submitted that the incident has taken place as the complainant was urinating at the backside of the office premises in Nevalbase and therefore, the applicant has reprimanded the complainant, due to which, the complainant, who is working as Sub-Contractor in the premises, has lodged the FIR, which prima facie is filed with malafide intention and with an ulterior motive. Even as per the say of the complainant, the applicant has given two slaps on the complainant, which cannot be constituted the provisions of Section 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as it is not coming within the purview of Section 323 of IPC and therefore, she has submitted that such malacious proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law and therefore, this Court should exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of (i) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 (ii) Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 and (iii) Narad Patel Vs. State of Chhatisgarh reported in (2019) 6 SCC 268.

6. She also relied on the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in cases of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 469 and Sri Gulam Mustafa Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 421 and has submitted that the alleged offence committed in the office premises cannot be considered as committed in a public view. She has also submitted that no ingredients of any of the sections of Atrocities Act are satisfied. Therefore, the allegations made in the FIR seem to be patentl