Gujarat High Court
Dilipbhai @ Jaydeep Hasmukhbhai Joshi vs State Of Gujarat on 15 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/603/2020 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 603 of 2020
==========================================================
DILIPBHAI @ JAYDEEP HASMUKHBHAI JOSHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS VINITA SOTANI FOR MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 15/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.11824004200015 of 2020 registered with Songadh Police Station, Tapi for the offences under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC, under sections 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and section 66(C) of Information Technology Act and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Majmudar for the petitioner, learned advocate Ms.Vinita Sotani for learned advocate Mr.N.V.Gandhi for respondent no.2 and learned APP Mr.Dave for respondent - State.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar for the petitioner submits that FIR impugned in this petition is continuous of FIR being C.R.No.I-26 of 2019 registered with Vyara Police Station for the Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 23:06:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/603/2020 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined offence under sections 354A(1)(i)(ii), 354A(2), 323, 506(2) of IPC, section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(5-a) of the Atrocities Act and under section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act. Learned advocate Mr.Majumdar submits that in the previous FIR which is filed on similar premises, learned Special Court in Atrocity Case No.6 of 2019 by judgment and order dated 31.05.2022 acquitted the petitioner believing that prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that on plain reading of FIR it appears that complainant is habitual is filing complaint and purpose of filing second complaint is to drag the petitioner in litigation. It is further submitted that according to FIR, the petitioner has administered threat to the complainant, however, essential ingredients of section 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC are totally missing and FIR is filed after delay of four days. It is further submitted that if administer of threat is passed upon complaint attracting offence under section 504 of IPC, it would be intentional insult to provoke breach as well as criminal intimidation which caused alarm defined in section 504 and 506(2) of IPC but none of them are found in existence. It is further submitted that going by FIR, no specific word are said to have been spoken by the accused which could be treated as casteir slur attracting offence under section 3(1)(r) of Atrocities Act. It is further submitted that it is not spoken in public view as in the present case no third party was present, even as per FIR no such castier slur was spoken. In view of that it is submitted to allow the petition.
3.1. In so far as offence under section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act is concerned, it is in regard to the punishment Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 23:06:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/603/2020 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined on for identify theft and if someone fraudulently or dishonestly makes use of person's electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature, such act would be punishable under section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act. In the present case, it is not even case of the complainant that her electronic signature, password was impersonated by the petitioner. In view of above, it is submitted that the petition deserves consideration and requires to be allowed by quashing FIR.
4. Learned advocate Ms.Sotani for respondent no.2 would submit that the petitioner is habitual offender. He was behind complainant and repeatedly harassed her and when complainant did not succumb to his pressure, he has committed the offence upon complainant. Firstly under section 354(A) of the IPC and residual offence and secondly, present offence. She submitted that though in first offence, learned Special Court has acquitted the petitioner, it is in repercussion over second offence. Hence, she submits that FIR should be investigated to find out truth. Upon this submissions, she submits to dismiss the petition.
5. Learned APP for respondent State adopted the arguments of learned advocate Ms.Sotani and submitted that the let investigation be completed till then, the Court may not exercise extra-ordinary power to quash the FIR.
6. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and considered documents on record. What could be noticed that learned Special Judge in Atrocity Case No.6 of 2019 acquitted Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 23:06:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/603/2020 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined the petitioner by judgment and order dated 31.05.2022. This was FIR prior in time, where allegations of section 354(A) of IPC and residual offence were levelled. Learned Special Court after appreciating evidence on record believed that prosecution has failed to prove case against the petitioner and recorded clear acquittal in favour of the petitioner. Present FIR is continuous of first FIR. Even narration as made in second FIR and then second FIR states that petitioner was passing threat of dire consequences. However, essential ingredients of section 504 and 506 of IPC are to the effect that there should be intentional insult with intend to provoke breach and criminal intimidation to the effect that it caused alarm to the complainant. FIR on plain reading misses both the ingredients. It is not case of the complainant that subsequent to passing of threat, peace was breached or it is not case of the complainant that through dire consequences passed by the petitioner it has caused alarm. Filing of FIR to fold letter of incident itself shows that there is no causing of alarm.
7. So far as offence of Atrocities Act is concerned, no specific word are stated in the FIR which could be treated as castlier slur spoken with intention to derogate complainant on her caste. Even complainant fails to show that such words were spoken within public view. FIR states allegation of castlier slur but no specific words are stated. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Georige Pentaiah v/s. State of Andra Pradesh [2008 (12) SCC 531], held that complainant ought to alleged that accused are not member of SC /ST caste and he was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 23:06:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/603/2020 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined with intent to humiliate in place within public view. In the present case, basic ingredients are missing in the FIR.
8. Insofar as offence under section 66(C) of Information Technology Act is concerned, contents in the FIR remotely fails to attract said offence.
9. Resultantly, this application is allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R.No.11824004200015 of 2020 registered with Songadh Police Station, Tapi filed against the present petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Wed Sep 17 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 23:06:32 IST 2025