A FIR can be quashed if it does not disclose a prima facie offence, especially where requirements of public view and derogatory remarks under the Atrocities Act are not met.

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that, present petitioner have not pressed for this application insofar as the offence punishable under the IPC. Thus, this application 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 petitioner prayed for quashment of the FIR being C.R. No. I - 102 of 2018 registered with Navrangpura Police Station against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) 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 the petitioner herein is a Chartered Accountant. That, the original complainant was employed with the petitioner's wife's firm namely Icon Financial in deals Services which financing. The complainant was micro supposed to collect the money from the field executives of Icon Financial Services and personally deposit this cash with bank account of the firm Icon Financial Services. As admitted by the complainant himself in the F.I.R, the complainant has stolen an amount of more than Rs 2.88 lakhs from the petitioner's wife firm in the month of June'2018. And when the petitioner's wife tallied the accounts, the same was found missing. On confronting the complainant regarding same, the complainant had admitted to stealing the money and had promised to pay it back. To which an affidavit cum confession was also executed by him. A copy of which is annexed as "Annexure B". Pursuant to this confession, the mother of the complainant had also paid up Rs 30,000/- to the Icon Financial Service by way of a cheque and promised to pay further amount within 30 days. The present petitioner and his wife are being penalized for forgiving the complainant. The present F.I.R is lodged almost one and half month by the complainant after his confession of theft. The F.I.R is an afterthought for not paying up the rest of the stolen amount. In fact the complainant herein met with an accident and was promptly attended to and taken to the hospital. To the best knowledge of the petitioner even in the doctor's history the complainant has stated that complainant had met with an accident. And now just to extort money from the petitioner, the complainant has twisted the facts and filed false complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner and his wife were in the process of filing an F.I.R of theft against the original complainant. As a counterblast, present FIR is filed.

4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent – State.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner taking to the FIR would submit that general allegations are made against the petitioner 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. Though served, none appears for the complainant.

7. Learned APP while adopting the submissions made by learned advocate for the first informant would submit to dismiss the present petition.

8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and examining the FIR as it is, it appears that Prima facie,