Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
J.C. DOSHI
Ishwarbhai Versibhai Desai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. learned advocate mr.tirmizi does not press (Para 2) |
| 2. the alleged offence did not take place (Para 3) |
| 3. the complainant as well as mr.kadarbhai (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. i have heard learned advocates (Para 6) |
| 5. by the order dated 18.08.2017 (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. i went to my office and manager (Para 9) |
| 7. the following offences under the atrocities act (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 8. in swaran singh vs. state (Para 13) |
| 9. a place can be private place (Para 14) |
| 10. in the case of dinesh @ buddha (Para 15 , 16) |
| 11. the place of the office of the petitioner (Para 17) |
| 12. the petition is allowed. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of rule for respondent No.1 – State and learned advocate Mr.Rushabh Shah waives service of rule for respondent No.2.
3. Referring to the FIR, learned advocate Mr.Tirmizi would submit that the alleged offence did not take place within public domain. He would further submit that according to FIR, the incident took place within the office of the accused Ishwarbhai Desai and therefore, there is clear bar of Section 3(1)(10) of Atrocities Act are attracted in the present case. He would further submit that on plain reading of FIR, it does
The court held that the FIR did not satisfy the necessary elements for offences under the Atrocities Act, as the incident occurred in a private setting and lacked evidence of caste-based insult.
The FIR under the Atrocities Act was quashed due to lack of essential elements, including public view and caste identification.
The absence of necessary averments regarding caste identity and public view in the FIR led to the quashing of charges under the Atrocities Act.
The essential elements for offences under the Atrocities Act include intentional insult in public view and specific allegations regarding caste status, which were not met in this case.
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 absence of essential elements, such as public view and caste identification, precludes prosecution under the Atrocities Act.
The FIR did not disclose sufficient grounds for offences under the Atrocities Act, lacking essential elements such as derogatory remarks and 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 did not disclose any offence under the Atrocities Act as it lacked necessary ingredients, leading to its quashment.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
