The absence of public view during the alleged incident and lack of independent witnesses led to the quashing of the FIR under the Atrocity Act and IPC.

JUDGMENT :

D.A. Joshi, J.

1. Rule. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the respondent no.2 - State of Gujarat waives service of notice.

2. By way of present application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("CrPC" for short), the applicant has prayed for quashment of the impugned First Information Report being C.R. No.II-178/2019 registered with Kamalabaug Police Station, Porbandar for the offences under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and under Sections 3(1)(R)(S) of the Prevention of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes ("Atrocity Act" for short).

3. The allegations leveled in the FIR in nutshell are as under,

The land bearing Survey No.2885/2 situated in the sim of Village : Chhaya owned by the respondent no.2 herein was sold by him to one Rambhai Mokariya and the applicant herein for sale consideration of Rs.2,00,00,000/-, for which, registered sale deed has been executed by him and at the time of execution of the registered sale deed, the accused have paid an amount of Rs.1,92,00,000/- and it was decided to pay remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as when the construction of commercial shops and residential apartment is over. It is alleged that thereafter the respondent no.2 started demanding the remaining amount and at that point of time, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was given and, thereafter, the respondent no.2 used to demand remaining about but the accused did not give it. It is alleged that on 12.03.2019 at about 8 O'clock, the respondent no.2 had gone to the office of the applicant, where two persons were sitting, however, those two persons were asked to go out from the office and, thereafter, when the respondent no.2 had demanded the remaining amount, the applicant started abusing him. It is alleged that thereafter on 25.03.2019, the respondent no.2 submitted an application to the concerned Superintendent of Police narrating the aforesaid incident and, thereafter, the talks of settlement were going on but not a single penny has been given by the applicant to the respondent no.2. Therefore, the impugned FIR has been lodged.

4. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Rahul Dholakia for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt. Though served, none appears for the respondent no.2.

5. Learned advocate, Mr. Dholakia submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, so-called incident occurred on 12.03.2019, for which, FIR has been lodged on 20.07.2019 and thus, there is gross delay of four months in registration of the FIR, which suggests that the applicant is falsely implicated in the aforesaid FIR. Learned advocate submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the complainant had sold his land to the applicant and one Rambhai Mokariya by executing registered sale deed before seven years from the date of incident and the accused had already given Rs.1,92,00,000/- to the complainant at the time of execution of the registered sale deed and as per the oral assurance given by the accused, remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- would be paid within no time and on the strength of the assurance given by the accused persons, the complainant had entered into an agreement and sale deed was executed before the competent authority and for the purpose of getting remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/-, on number of occasions, the complainant had gone to the office of the accused persons as the accused had started construction over the said land, however in the meantime, the said Rambhai Mokariya had already relieved from the said business, therefore, the complainant used to go to the office of the applicant for the purpose of getting outstanding amount and the accused had paid Rs.50,000/- to the complainant but remaining amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was not paid. Learned advocate submitted that it is the specific case of the prosecution that on 12.03.2023 at around 8 O'clock, the complainant had gone to the office of the applicant, at the relevant point of time, two persons were sitting in the chamber of the applicant, who w