IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 23235 of 2019 ==========================================================
RAMESHBHAI RAVATBHAI DABHI & ORS.
Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHINTAN S POPAT(5004) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR ROHAN RAVAL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 17/03/2025
ORDER :
(J.C. DOSHI, J.)
By an order dated 17/12/2019, learned advocate for the petitioner does not press for this petition insofar as the offence punishable under the IPC. Thus, this petition is confined to the offence punishable under the Atrocities Act.
2. By way of this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the FIR being C.R. No.I-184 of 2019 with Kodinar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,) 1989.
3. The short facts of the case as emerging from the FIR are that while the complainant and other labour were doing some cleaning work at that time one dumper passed through the said place and complainant requested the driver of the said dumper to take care and to use the hook of dumper to remove iron rod to which the accused got excited started giving kick and fist blows and insulted the caste of the complainant which has resulted into a lodgment of the FIR.
4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and learned APP for the respondent – State. Though served, respondent no.2 has not appeared.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners taking to the FIR would submit that general allegations are made against the petitioners and no such ingredients of the alleged offence is attracted if the FIR is read at its face value. In regards to the allegations made under the Atrocities Act, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that FIR does not disclose the fact that any derogatory words was used by the petitioner to lower the caste of the first informant. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that if the FIR is read as it is no such ingredients of the alleged offence is found prima facie to have been attracted qua the petitioner and therefore by making above submissions, he would submit to allow this petition and to quash the FIR.
6. Learned APP for the respondent – State would taking this Court through the statement made in the FIR submitted that offence alleged to have been made out against the petitioners as the petitioners have used derogatory words to lower the caste of the complainant and therefore prima-facie material is made out which constitute the offence as alleged in the FIR. He would therefore submit to dismiss the present petition.
7. As noted herein above, respondent no.2 though served has not appeared to contest the petition.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and examining the FIR as it is, it appears that while the complainant and other labour were doing some cleaning work at that time one dumper passed through the said place and complainant requested the driver of the said dumper to take care and to use the hook of dumper to remove iron rod to which the accused got excited started giving kick and fist blows and insulted the caste of the complainant which has resulted into a lodgment of the FIR.
9. Prima facie, reading of the FIR does not disclose any offence as alleged under the Atrocities Act in the FIR. It could be noticed that offence under under Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5)(a) of the Atrocities Act is alleged; however none of the averments made in the FIR attracts the said provision. What could be noticed that at no where it is stated in the FIR that accused belongs to general caste and first informant belongs to schedule caste and by using such derogatory remarks he had insulted his caste in public place. Even, which kind of the words are used to derogate the caste of the complainant is not coming out from the FIR. Baring allegations nothing is coming from the FIR to satisfy the ingredient of the offence alleged against the petitioners. To be noted that presence of third party in whose presence if such derogatory remarks are made is also missing in the present case and therefore also necessary ingredients to satisfy the offence under the Atrocities Act are missing.
10. In Karupp
AI
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 FIR did not disclose any offence under the Atrocities Act as it lacked necessary ingredients, leading to its quashment.
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.
The FIR did not disclose sufficient grounds for offences under the Atrocities Act, lacking essential elements such as derogatory remarks and public view.
FIR lacks necessary allegations to establish offences under the Atrocities Act, failing to meet legal requirements of public view and specific derogatory remarks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.