Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(GUJ) 170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 12588 of 2017 ==========================================================
BHARATKUMAR SHANTILAL DAVE Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SS SAIYED(3690) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MANAN MAHETA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED TO CONCERNED POLICE STATION HOWEVER, SERVICE REPORT NOT FILED BY POLICE STATION for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 10/03/2025

Petitioner Advocates:MR SS SAIYED(3690) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

The absence of call records undermines the credibility of an FIR for criminal intimidation, indicating it may be filed with malicious intent.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Section 507 - Quashing of FIR - The applicant sought to quash an FIR for criminal intimidation, asserting that no call was made from his mobile to the complainant's number, thus rendering the FIR baseless - The court found the FIR to be vexatious, as the call details contradicted the allegations - The court ruled that there was no reason to put the petitioner on trial. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Criminal Intimidation - The court emphasized that the evidence presented demonstrated that the FIR was filed to exert pressure on the petitioner, who was a witness in departmental proceedings against the complainant. (Paras 5-6)

Facts of the case:
The FIR alleged that the petitioner used derogatory language over the phone, but call records showed no communication occurred between the involved numbers on the specified date.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the FIR was frivolous and quashed it, stating that the petitioner should not face trial under these circumstances.

Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR was based on valid evidence or was filed to intimidate the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of call records undermined the credibility of the FIR, indicating it was filed with malicious intent.

Result: The petition is allowed; the FIR is quashed.

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”), the applicant seeks quashing of the FIR registered as CR No.II-48 of 2017 registered with Unjha Police Station, Mehsana for the offence punishable under Sections 507 of the Indian Penal Code and further proceedings arising thereof.

2. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

3. Seeking quashment of the FIR filed under Section 507 of IPC, learned advocate Mr.S.S.Saiyed for the petitioner would submit that as per the FIR filthy and derogatory language was spoken on the Mobile No.9825250202 which is said to have been belonge to the first informant from the Mobile No.9825684001 belonging to the petitioner at around 21.50 hours in midnight on 25.03.2017. Learned advocate Mr.Saiyed would submit that as per the call details produced at Annexure-B on such date no phone was ever made by petitioner from his mobile number to the mobile number stated to have been belonged to the first informant. Therefore, he submits that totally baseless and frivolous FIR has been filed. He also brought to the notice of the Court that department proceedings were pending against the first informant (Annexure-C) and submits that petitioner is witness in the said departmental proceedings. Therefore, in order to pressurize the petitioner, false FIR has been filed against the petitioner for offence under Section 507 of IPC. Upon above submissions, he would submit to quash the FIR.

4. Learned APP in this given facts and circumstances submits to pass necessary orders.

5. I have heard learned advocates for both sides and perused the record. What could be noticed that according to FIR, criminal intimidation by the unknown person has been done on 25.03.2017 by speaking filthy language on the phone. FIR also indicates that the petitioner spoke filthy language from his mobile phone at 21.50 hours at midnight on mobile No.9825250202 and as such criminal intimidated the first informant. The call details produced at Annexure-B demonstrates that on that alleged fateful day, no talks happened between mobile No.9825684001 and mobile No.9825250202. Such call details put the case of the petitioner to high pedestal. The FIR seemingly establishes vexatious and frivolous proceedings filed by the first informant as the petitioner is witness in the departmental proceedings carried against the first informant. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to put the petitioner on trial.

6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR registered as CR No.II-48 of 2017 registered with Unjha Police Station, Mehsana for the offence punishable under Sections 507 of the Indian Penal Code and further proceedings arising thereof are hereby quashed and set aside qua the applicant herein. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document