SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 17171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
GAJANAN MANAJI MISTRYV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT
R/CR.RA/999/2017



##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/999/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

0.37072303848324695

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER

PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 999 of 2017

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No

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

GAJANAN MANAJI MISTRY & ANR.

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR RAMNANDAN SINGH(1126) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2

MR MB RANA(2760) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

MR ROHAN H. RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 01/05/2026

JUDGMENT

1) By way of present revision application under Sections 397 and

401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants have

sought following relief:-

“(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to call for records and

proceedings Atrocity (Special) Case No.70 of 2016 and be

pleased to quash and set aside impugned order dated

21.8.2017 passed by learned Special Judge, City Sessions

Court No.18 (Atrocity) Ahmedabad in Atrocity (Special)

Case No.70 of 2016 below Exh.6, by holding the same to

be illegal and unlawful.

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO allow the

application below Ex 6 filed in Atrocity (Special) Case

Page 1 of 9

Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 16 21:59:00 IST 2026

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/999/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

0.37072303848324695

No.70 of 2016 pending before Learned Special Judge, City

Sessions Court No.18 (Atrocity) Ahmedabad.;”

2) Brief facts of the present case are that one FIR being I-

C.R.No.132 of 2015, came to be registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 384, 323, 506(2), 294(a), 114, 415

and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1), (3), (5), (8),

(10) and (15) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (which shall hereinafter be

referred to as “Atrocities Act” for short) with Gujarat University

Police Station, Ahmedabad. The applicants were arrested on

14.02.2016 and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet

came to be filed in which offences under Atrocities Act came to

be deleted as the investigating agency found that no case of

atrocity was made out. Thereafter, at the stage of framing of

charge before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate there was

objection raised by the complainant / prosecution that there are

elements of Sections 3(1), 3(5), 3(8), 3(10) and 3(15) of the

Atrocities Act and therefore, the matter was committed to the

special Atrocity Court as envisaged under Section 209 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (which shall hereinafter be referred

to as “the Code” for short). The learned City Civil Court,

Ahmedabad, registered the case and numbered as Special

Atrocity Case No.70 of 2016. Thereafter, on 29.12.2016 the

applicants preferred the discharge application at Exhibit 6 under

Page 2 of 9

Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 16 21:59:00 IST 2026

##PAGE3##

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/999/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026

0.37072303848324695

Section 227 of the Code and prayed to be discharged as they

belongs to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

Community (which shall hereinafter be referred to as “SC/ST

Community” for short). Thereafter, the learned Special Judge,

City Sessions Court No.18, (Atrocity), Ahmedabad, has been

pleased to reject the discharge application at Exhibit 6, vide

order dated 21.08.2017. Being aggrieved with and dissatisfied

by the same the applicants have preferred the present revision

application.

3) Learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh for the applicants, has

submitted that the applicants are falsely enroped in the offence

by the complainant as the applicant no.1 – husband of the

applicant no.2 belongs to SC / ST community and evidence to

that effect has already been placed wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top