IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING &

SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 6606 of 2017 =================================================

KANAKSINH PRABHATSINH JADEJA & ORS.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR. DEVENDRA G RANA(6997) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 =================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 22/09/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that, present petitioners 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 Atrocity Act.

2. By way of this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the FIR being C.R. No. I-27 of 2017, registered with Khambhaliya Police Station against the petitioners for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr. Devendra Rana for the private respondent.

4. 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 Atrocity Act, learned advocate for the petitioners 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. Moreover, there is nothing to show that the same happened in a public view as well as use of casteist slur.

4.1 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 petitioners and therefore, by making above submissions, he would submit to allow this petition and to quash the FIR so far it relates to Atrocity Act.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Devendra Rana for the respondent No. 2 adopted the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and on examining the FIR as it is, it appears that allegations are made to the effect that petitioners used derogatory words about the caste of the complainant.

7.1 Prima facie, reading of the FIR does not disclose any offence as alleged under the Atrocity Act. It could be noticed that offence under under the provisions of the Atrocity Act is alleged; however none of the averments made in the FIR attracts the said provision. What could be noticed that nowhere 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 a public place. Even, which kind of the words are used to derogate the caste of the complainant is not coming out from the FIR. Except bare allegations, nothing is coming from the FIR to satisfy the ingredients 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 ne