SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Guj) 607

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.
Kanjibhai Randhirbhai Parmar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondents
R/Criminal Misc.Application (For Quashing & Set Aside Fir/Order) No. 21901 of 2018
Decided on : 30-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR VIRAT G POPAT,
For the Respondent: MS TEJAL K SHAH

The absence of independent witnesses and the private nature of the incident precluded establishing the essential elements of the alleged offences under the Atrocities Act, leading to the quashing of the FIR.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(v)(a) - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of caste-based abuse made against college principal - Court found no independent witnesses to support claims of abuse in public view - Essential ingredients of the offence under the Atrocities Act not established - FIR quashed as an abuse of process of law. (Paras 3, 8, 11, 12)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Inherent powers of the High Court - The court may quash FIRs if allegations do not constitute an offence or are manifestly frivolous or vexatious. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a college principal, was accused of abusing a complainant based on caste after the complainant sought to view CCTV footage regarding his sister's absence from an examination. The FIR was challenged on grounds of lack of evidence and independent witnesses.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations did not meet the necessary legal standards to constitute an offence under the Atrocities Act, as the incident did not occur in public view and lacked independent witnesses.

Issues: The main issues were whether the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and whether the allegations met the criteria for abuse under the Atrocities Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of independent witnesses and the private nature of the incident meant that the essential elements of the alleged offences were not satisfied, leading to the conclusion that the FIR was an abuse of process.

Result: The first information report being C.R. No.II-153 OF 2016 registered before the Keshod Police Station, Junagadh is hereby ordered to be quashed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the applicants seek to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the first information report being C.R. No.II-153 OF 2016 registered before the Keshod Police Station, Junagadh for the offence punishable under sections 3(1)(R )(S), 3(2)(v)(a) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Virat Popat appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is the principal of the N.P. Arts & Commerce College, Keshod. It is alleged in the complaint that on the date of the incident, as the sister of the complainant, namely, Urmilaben Jamnabhai Parmar was not found in the examination hall, somebody from the college phoned the father of the complainant and informed him about the non-availability of his daughter who in turn informed about the same to the complainant. Therefore, with a view to check the veracity of the said information, the complainant went to the said college at around 3:15 p.m. and straightway went to the chamber of the applicant and requested the applicant to show him the C.C.T.V footage of the examination hall as he wanted to know whether his sister was there in the room or not. It is also alleged that thereafter the applicant asked him about his caste whereupon the complainant informed that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste, and upon hearing the same, the applicant got enraged and started abusing the complainant against his caste. Learned advocate Mr. Popat further submits that as soon as the impugned FIR came to be registered against the applicant, he immediately approached this Court by way of filing the present application wherein then Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice, protected the applicant vide order dated 23.11.2018 by directing the investigating officer not to take any coercive steps against the applicant and, therefore, charge-sheet has yet not been filed against the applicant. He also submits that the present applicant has also filed a complaint against the complainant herein wherein the applicant herein has stated that on the date of the incident, the complainant herein was standing in the lobby of the college, and at that point of time, the applicant herein was passing through the lobby and asked the complainant herein as to why he was standing there, upon which, the complainant herein told the applicant that he is being informed that his sister is not found available in the examination hall and, therefore, he has come to the college to check the C.C.T.V. footage of the examination hall whereupon the applicant told him that as the examination is going on, it is not possible for him to show the C.C.T.V. footages of the hall right now, but he would come at 5:00 p.m. However, the complainant did not agree and got angry and started abusing the applicant herein saying that he will not leave the campus, due to which, some scuffle took place between them. He also submits that in the cross-complaint also, charge-sheet has yet not been filed and the matter is still at the stage of investigation. Learned advocate Mr. Popat submits that at the time of filing the impugned FIR, the complainant has not given the name of any independent person who had witnessed the incident. Learned advocate Mr. Popat also submits that sub- clauses (1) to (xv) of Section 3(1) of the Act enumerated various kinds of atrocities that might be perpetrated against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which constitute an offence. However, sub-clause (x) is the only clause where even offending utterances have been made punishable. The legislature required intention as an essential ingredient for the offence of insult, intimidation and humiliation of a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top