IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5519 of 2018 ================================================================
ASHITBHAI ROHITBHAI SHAH & ORS.
Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
NIYANT R BHIMANI(8000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR MANAN MAHETA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 10/03/2025
ORDER :
J. C. DOSHI, J.
1. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report bearing C.R. No.II-05 of 2018 registered with Gotri Police Station, Vadodara City for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and the proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto.
3. It appears that there was a traffic jam near ABS Tower, Vadodara and a white Maruti Swift car bearing Registration No.GJ-06-KP-0943 overtook the complainant from the right. It is alleged that there was stationary tempo four wheeler on the other side and seeing space for a two wheeler to go through, the complainant herein attempted to go by. It is further alleged that the driver of the white swift car tried to rush towards the complainant and attempted to collide, the wife of the complainant got intimidated and started screaming, and hence, the complainant stopped his two wheeler-Activa. It is alleged that the driver of the car who is the applicant No.1 started abusing the complainant and his wife and threatened them also. Thereafter, it is alleged that the applicants herein got down from the car and started fighting with the complainant and abused him and also snatched the key.
4. Learned advocate for the applicants Mr. Niyant R. Bhimani, submitted that the alleged incident took place on 22.11.2017, the complaint of which is being registered on 10.01.2018. Further, looking to the allegations levelled in the FIR, the delay has not been explained by the complainant. It is also submitted that the non-explanation of the delay in filing the FIR assumes significance because the first informant is a practicing Advocate and he has the knowledge that the alleged incident is to be reported to the police as early as possible. He has further submitted that a written complaint was lodged by the first informant before the police and on such a written statement, he has stated that a different version of the incident while in the FIR, a different version of the incident has been narrated. Learned advocate for the applicants further submitted that if the FIR is taken as it is, the same does not attract the offences under Section 294(b) or 506 of the IPC and therefore, it is submitted the impugned complaint may be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the applicants were not named in the FIR and their names are revealed during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that the investigation has not been carried further and no other materials are shown to substantiate the allegations made in the FIR, and hence, this Court may not entertain the application and dismiss the same.
6. The respondent No.2 has been served but has chosen not to remain present.
7. This Court has heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and has perused the material on record. At the outset, it is necessary to refer to Sections 294(b) and 506 of the IPC, which reads as under :-
“294. Obscene acts and songs. - Whoever, to the annoyance of others, (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public space shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation -
Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.”
8. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the FIR. Relevant translated version of the FIR reads as under :-
“On 22.11.2017, I and my wife Shilpaben were on our Activa No.GJ- 6-FH-6667 and were going for a wedding reception and when we were passing through Juna Padra Road
The court quashed the FIR as it did not disclose a cognizable offence and the delay in filing was unexplained, emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of legal processes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of law.
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.
The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 to quash an FIR due to lack of prima facie evidence against the petitioner, emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of judicial process.
FIR quashed under Section 528 BNSS as counter-blast to petitioner's prior complaint alleging outraging modesty, per Bhajan Lal Category 7, due to unexplained six-day delay and mala fide intent amid l....
Point of law : When the information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered then the mala fides of the third party would be of secondary importance.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.