SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(GUJ) 653

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 3484 of 2020 ==========================================================
NIRAV GAUTAMBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAD D BUCH(4000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MRS. BHAVINI N. BUCH(5403) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR BOMI H SETHNA(5864) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR SOHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 13/03/2025

Petitioner Advocates:MR NIRAD D BUCH(4000) ,Respondent Advocate: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2)

The FIR lacked essential elements to support charges under the Atrocities Act, leading to its quashing as an abuse of process.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 427, 504, 114 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners sought quashing of FIR for offences under IPC and Atrocities Act - Petition not pressed for IPC offences - Court found no prima facie case under Atrocities Act as FIR lacked necessary elements - Quashing of FIR under Atrocities Act ordered. (Paras 4, 5, 8, 10.1)

(B) Abuse of Process of Law - Court emphasized that proceeding under Atrocities Act without sufficient grounds constitutes an abuse of process. (Paras 8, 10.1)

Facts of the case:
The FIR was lodged by the first informant against the petitioners alleging caste-based insults and physical assault. The petitioners countered with their own FIR.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR did not establish the necessary elements for offences under the Atrocities Act, leading to the quashing of the FIR.

Issues: The main issue was whether the FIR contained sufficient allegations to support charges under the Atrocities Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the FIR failed to demonstrate intentional insult or intimidation towards a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, thus quashing the proceedings under the Atrocities Act.

Result: Petition allowed; FIR quashed.

ORDER :

(J.C. DOSHI, J.)

1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”), the applicants seek quashing of the FIR registered as C.R.No.11207031600055 of 2020 with Kaalol Police Station, Panchmahal for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 427,504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 135 of Gujarat Police Act and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the Atrocities Act” for short) and further proceedings arising thereof. 

2. The brief facts of the case are as under :

2.1 On 03.02.2020, petitioner no.1 lodged FIR against father, mother, sister and brother of respondent no.2. As a counter blast, respondent no.2 on the same day lodged impugned FIR. In the impugned FIR, it has been alleged by the Respondent No. 2 that when the first informant returned to his home from his job, the petitioners herein were allegedly present near the house of the first informant along with sticks. The petitioners were allegedly hurling abuses in the name of the caste of the first informant and also allegedly threatening to vacate their house and shift to some other place. It is further alleged that the mother of the first informant requested the petitioners not to hurl abuses. However, the petitioners lost temper and allegedly broke the light of the house of the first informant and also damaged the autorickshaw of the first informant. It is also been alleged that the petitioners herein allegedly heckled the mother of the first informant and inflicted kicks and fist blows on her person. It is also alleged that even a minor son of the first informant received injuries on his forehead in the incident. The first informant is also alleged that soon thereafter, as the public gathered, the petitioners allegedly eloped from the scene of incident.

3. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

4. At the outset, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that he does not press this petition for offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of as not pressed for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. As far as petition qua the offences punishable under the Atrocities Act are concerned, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that there is not a single word in the entire FIR which could attract offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Atrocities Act. He would further submit that looking to the contents of the FIR, putting a person on trial for the offence under the Atrocities Act would be an abuse of process of law.

5.1. Upon above submissions, he would submit to allow this petition by quashing the FIR for the offences under the Atrocities Act qua the petitioners.

6. Learned advocate for the first informant, however, would submit that according to FIR, some abusive words were spoken on and for the caste of the first informant and looking to that aspect, establishing from the plain reading of FIR, prima facie case under the Atrocities Act is made out against the present petitioners. Therefore, he submits to dismiss this petition.

7. Learned APP adopting the arguments canvassed by learned advocate for the first informant would submit to pass necessary orders.

8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the FIR. To establish the offence under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (5a) of the Atrocities Act, the first informant prima facie requires to plead intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in any place within the public view and to abuse a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by caste naming within public view. Section 3(2)(5a) demands that the accused knowing that the first informant or victims are members of Scheduled Caster or Sc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top