Gujarat High Court
Becharbhai Ambubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 28 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3812/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 3812 of 2021
==========================================================
BECHARBHAI AMBUBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOHAM JOSHI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 28/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
By way of this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the FIR No. 11209054201579 of 2020 registered with the Vadali Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 504, 506(2) of IPC and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2) (Va) of the Atrocities Amendment Act 2015.
2. The short facts of the case as emerging from the FIR are that brother of the complainant committed suicide in the well owned by the accused and thereby by keeping doubt over his death, father of the first informant made application in the Police Station and by keeping grudge over the said dispute, accused went to the house of the complainant and gave filthy abuses asking them as to why they are making false application against them by using particular word of their caste unless they will kill them and threatened the complainant side.
3. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners and learned APP for the respondent - State. Respondent no.2 though served with the Notice, did Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Sat Mar 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 03 22:22:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3812/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025 undefined not appear before the Court.
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 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.
5. Learned APP for the respondent - State would taking this Court through the statement made in the FIR as well as the statement of the witnesses and 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. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and examining the FIR as it is, it appears that allegations are made to the effect that brother of the complainant committed suicide in the well owned by the accused and thereby by keeping doubt over his death, father of the first informant made application in the Police Station and by keeping grudge over the said dispute, accused went to the house of the complainant and gave filthy abuses asking them as to why they are making false application against them by using particular word of their Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Sat Mar 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 03 22:22:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3812/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025 undefined caste unless they will kill them and threatened the complainant side.
7. Prima facie, reading of the FIR does not disclose any offence as alleged in the FIR. It could be noticed that offence under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC is alleged; however none of the averments made in the FIR attracts the said provision whereby intentional insult to give provocation to person insulted and the criminal intimidation is prima facie proved. What further could be noticed that at no where 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 public place. Even, which kind of the words are used to derogate the caste of the complainant is not coming out from the FIR. Baring allegations nothing is coming from the FIR to satisfy the ingredient of the offence alleged against the petitioners.
8. In Karuppudayar vs State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 215], the Apex Court examined the terms public view and has held in paragraph 10 to 11 as under:
"9. A perusal of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC-ST Act would reveal that for constituting an offence thereunder, it has to be established that the accused intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Similarly, for constituting an offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, it will be necessary that the accused abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view.
Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Sat Mar 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 03 22:22:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3812/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025 undefined
10. The term "any place within public view" initially came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Swaran Singh v. State through Standing Counsel2. This Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand3 referred to Swaran Singh (supra) and reiterated the legal position as under:
"14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this principle in para 15, below:"Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view."]. The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28) "28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Sat Mar 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 03 22:22:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3812/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025 undefined when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression "place within public view" with the expression "public place". A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies."
(emphasis in original)"
11. It could thus be seen that, to be a place 'within public view', the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view."
9. Thus, the ingredients alleged under the Atrocities Act are missing from the FIR. None of the allegations made in the FIR would attract the Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Sat Mar 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 03 22:22:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3812/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025 undefined offence under the Atrocities Act. Insofar as the offence under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC is concerned, no such criminal intimidation causing threat to life or property is made out from the FIR. Thus, the FIR is missing to satisfy the necessary ingredients to make out the offence under Section 504 and 506(2) of the IPC. To be noted that if the FIR is read as it is knowledge of the accused is missing there-from that accused belong to general caste and first informant belongs to schedule caste and thus the necessary ingredients to make out the offence are not satisfied from the averments made in the FIR.
10. At this juncture, I may refer to the relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335].
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Sat Mar 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 03 22:22:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3812/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025 undefined accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Sat Mar 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 03 22:22:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3812/2021 ORDER DATED: 28/02/2025 undefined
11. In view of above, allowing FIR further into trial would be abuse of process of law. Criminal proceedings started is found to be initiated by giving color of criminality. The petition deserves consideration.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 11209054201579 of 2020 registered with the Vadali Police Station as well as consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof qua present petitioner is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) sompura Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Sat Mar 01 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 03 22:22:54 IST 2025