JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashment of the impugned FIR being C.R. – II No.40 of 2018 registered with the Chotila Police Station, District : Surendranagar for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1) (s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner and the complainant, both are the members of one political party. Since the petitioner was claiming the post of President of Chotila Nagarpalika and the complainant was going to cast his vote in favour of the Congress Party, there were exchange of words as alleged and the petitioner has humiliated the complainant in front of other elected members, including the women members of the Nagarpalika. Therefore, the impugned complaint.

3. Heard learned advocates.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Kunal S. Shah for the applicant has submitted that this is a gross of abuse of process of law. He has submitted that the petitioner and the complainant were friends and have contested & elected as the Members of the Chotila Nagarpalika on the symbol of the same political party - BJP. They had such good terms that they can say anything to each other. He has submitted that incident never happened between them. The complainant has falsely implicated the petitioner in the offence in question. He has submitted that there was an election of President of the Nagarpalika and as the complainant and few other elected members have cast their votes against the mandate of the BJP and in turn, not in favour of the petitioner, a complaint was made by the petitioner against them to remove from the Party and therefore, keeping grudge in mind, the complainant has lodged the impugned complaint. He has submitted that though a complaint is made against other members, that too women elected members, they have not made any complaint, that too criminal complaint against the petitioner.

4.2 He has submitted that the complainant wanted to be a President of the Nagarpalika and the Party has not inclined to declare the complainant as a President of the Nagarpalika, but the name of the petitioner has selected by the Party and therefore, the complainant has made the impugned complaint against the petitioner. He has submitted that no ingredients are attracted/ satisfied which culminated into an offence in question. He has submitted that the complainant has tried to disturb the image of the petitioner. He has submitted that the complainant has kept ill-motive that if he will not be a President, then the petitioner, being a good friend of him, will not be a President of the Nagarpalika. He has submitted that this is a misuse of the law by the complainant. He has submitted that during the course of investigation, there is no material whatsoever against the petitioner which culminated into the offence in question. He has submitted that there is no evidence against the petitioner which attracts the ingredients of the Sections, as invoked in the impugned complaint. He has submitted that this petition may be allowed by quashing the impugned complaint.

4.3 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions :

(i) 2023 LawSuit (Kar) 18 – Shailesh Kumar Venkatesh versus State of Karnataka; Jayamma W/o Kenchappa

(ii) 2017 LawSuit (Del) 1297 – Prem Mardi versus Union of India

(iii) 2008 LawSuit (SC) 2280 – Gorige Pentaiah versus State of A.P.

(iv) (2008) 8 SCC 435 – Swaran Singh versus State

(v) 2022 LawSuit (Ori) 831 – Surendra Kumar Mishra versus State of Orissa

(vi) 2023 AHC 52312 – Syed Mohiuddin Ahmad versus State of U.P.

(vii) 2020 LawSuit (SC) 691 – Hitesh Verma versus State of Uttarakhand

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Dhaval A. Parmar for the complainant has submitted that prima facie offence is made out against the petitio