IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 8724 of 2016 ==========================================================

PARMAR (DARBAR) JUJARJI CHANDAJI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR VALERIE PARERA for MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Petitioner ANKIT N MEHTA(7302) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR SOHAM JOSHI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

No. 1,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 03/10/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.II - 72 of 2016 registered with Mehsana "B" Division Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(1) of the IPC, u/s 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short “the Act”) as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.

3. Seeking quashment of the impugned FIR, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that bare reading of the FIR does not disclose any case against the petitioner. She would further submit that taking the FIR on its face value, essential ingredients of sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC are missing against the petitioner. So far as offences under the Atrocities Act is concerned, learned advocate for the petitioner would further submit that taking the FIR on its face value, it does not specify that which derogatory words are spoken by the petitioner to lower down the caste of the complainant. She would further submit that even otherwise, the allegations levelled in the FIR indicate that the offence does not attract phrase “within the public view” and therefore, offences under the Atrocities Act are not attracted. She would further submit that as far as offence u/s 504 of the IPC is concerned, there is no intentional insult and even the words are not said to have been spoken by the petitioner. She would further submit that no specific abusive language is noticeable from the FIR and it does not therefore attract criminal intimidation.

3.1 Upon such submission, Learned advocate for the petitioner prays to allow this petition.

4. Per contra, learned advocate for the complainant after argument to some extent, failed to point out that how the offences u/s 504, 506(2), 32 of the IPC is made out considering the FIR on its face value. So far as offence under the Atrocity Act is concerned, learned advocate for the complainant would submit that offence alleged to have been made out against the petitioner as the petitioner has 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.

5. Learned APP considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, prays to pass necessary orders.

6. Perusing the contents of the FIR, what could be noticed that so far as offence punishable u/s 323, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC are concerned, there cannot be an intentional insult with an intent to provoke breach of peace. These essential ingredients are totally lacking on reading the FIR as well as all the evidence on record. At no point of time, it comes on record that because of intentional insult by the accused, the complainant was provoked to break public peace or to commit any other offence. Considering the contents of the FIR, the prosecution failed to bring the case within four corners of “with an intent to cause alarm to the complainant”.

7. As far as offence under the provisions of the Atrocities Act is concerned, the FIR on record if reads as it is, does not allege that the petitio