HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
JCD
ABDUL OSMAN NAREJA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
ORDER :
(J.C. DOSHI, J.)
Learned advocates for the petitioners do not press for this petition insofar as the offence punishable under the IPC. Permission as prayed for is granted. Thus, these petitions are confined to the offence punishable under the Atrocities Act.
2. By way of these petitions, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the FIR being C.R. No. II-59 of 2019 registered with Adesar Police Station against the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5)(a) of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The short facts of the case as emerging from the FIR are that since the complainant was doing job of cultivating the crop in the agriculture field, the present accused persons asked him to vacate the said premises and field and not to do this work; to which complainant informed that he was doing this job since long years and thus the accused persons got excited and gave threat to kill him and thereby committed the aforesaid offence which has resulted into lodgment of the FIR.
4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and learned advocate for
The FIR did not disclose any offence under the Atrocities Act as it lacked necessary ingredients, leading to its quashment.
The FIR was quashed as it failed to disclose essential elements of an offence under the Atrocities Act, including specific derogatory remarks and the context of public view.
The absence of essential ingredients in the FIR, specifically public view and caste-based derogation, warrants quashing of the proceedings under the Atrocities Act.
The FIR lacked necessary elements to constitute an offence under the Atrocities Act, as no derogatory remarks or public view were established.
FIR lacks necessary allegations to establish offences under the Atrocities Act, failing to meet legal requirements of public view and specific derogatory remarks.
The FIR did not disclose sufficient grounds for offences under the Atrocities Act, lacking essential elements such as derogatory remarks and public view.
The court held that an FIR alleging offences under the Atrocities Act must disclose specific derogatory remarks made in public view, which was not established in this case.
An FIR under the Atrocities Act is quashed when it lacks essential ingredients necessary to constitute an offence, specifically failing to demonstrate remarks made in public view.
To constitute an offence under the Atrocities Act, accusations must demonstrate derogatory terms or insults made in public view, which were absent in the present case.
To establish an offence under the Atrocities Act, allegations must clearly demonstrate derogatory language used in public view, which was not present in this case.
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.