IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17912 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL ==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No

1	Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	No
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	No
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	No
4	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	No

==========================================================

JIGNESH BHARATKUMAR BHATT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================

Appearance:

MS.DILBUR CONTRACTOR(6388) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2 MR .B A PATEL(5281) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS M D MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 12/04/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Dilbur Contractor for the applicants and learned APP Ms. M.D. Mehta for the respondent-State. Learned Advocate Mr. B.A. Patel for the respondent No.2 is not present.

2. At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that even on the last occasion i.e. on 02.03.2022, learned Advocate Mr. B.A. Patel for the respondent No. 2 was not present and whereas in context of absence of the learned Advocate it was specifically ordered by this Court that if learned Advocate is not present, the matter would be taken up for final disposal by this Court.

3. By way of this application the applicants pray for quashing of the FIR being C.R. No. 11196037200816 of 2020 registered with Laxmipura Police Station, Vadodara City, on 09.10.2020, for offences punishable under Sections 354, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. A perusal of the impugned FIR reveals that there are two separate allegations made in the FIR. The first allegation with regard to offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC is stated to have been committed on 22.07.2020, whereas the allegation being that when the complainant and the applicant No.1 herein were in the lift in their residential appartment, the applicant No.1 had allegedly grabbed the hand of the complainant. It is stated that since the complainant was ashamed of the act committed by the applicant herein she did not inform anybody about the same. The second incident being dated 27.09.2020, wherein on account of the applicants not giving the keys of the door leading to the terrace of the appartment building to the complainant, the complainant had first called up the Abhayam helpline by dialing 181 and thereafter she called up the police officials by dialing 100 and thereafter it appears that on 29.09.2020 when the keys of the terrace were refused, the complainant had herself gone and broken open the lock.

5. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Dilbur Contractor for the applicants who would submit that the present FIR has been filed by the complainant just with a view to pressurize, harass and settled scores with the applicants. Learned Advocate would submit that the complainant is the tenant of a residential appartment, where the present applicants are residing. Learned Advocate would take the Court though certain whatsapp chats between the applicants and the landlord of the flat where the complainant was residing. The endeavour of the learned Advocate being to show that the complainant was creating trouble and nuisance to all other persons residing in the flat and whereas the complainant was also creating nuisance for her landlord. Learned Advocate had also tendered copies of photographs which show the complainant breaking opened the lock as mentioned by the complainant in the FIR. Learned Advocate would submit that while the complainant was creating trouble for all the other members of the appartment and whereas in any case the al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document