Gujarat High Court
Harpalsinh Jayvantsinh Zala vs State Of Gujarat on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8840/2018 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 8840 of 2018
==========================================================
HARPALSINH JAYVANTSINH ZALA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAHESH K POOJARA(5879) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR. SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned advocate for the petitioners, at the threshold, expressly disclaimed pressing the petition insofar as it relates to petitioner Nos. 1 and 3.
2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being II - 3040 of 2018 registered with Halvad Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.
3. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 and learned APP for the respondent-State.
4. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated, thus: The complaint came to be lodged by one Khodabhai (Koli), inter alia alleging that on 29.03.2018 at Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:42:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8840/2018 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined about 6:30 p.m., while he was returning home on his motorbike along with his wife, Smt. Varshaben, and his son, four persons were walking on the road ahead of him. Upon the complainant pressing the horn, the said persons allegedly failed to give way, hurled abuses at him, and further threatened to kill him. The complainant thereafter went home and informed his neighbour, one Jitubhai Koli, whereupon the FIR in question came to be registered against the accused persons.
4.1. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the FIR is wholly misconceived and mala fide. The allegations under Sections 504 and 506(2) IPC pertain to a brief roadside altercation, wherein the complainant claims that the petitioners abused him and threatened to kill him. The FIR, being lodged with oblique motive to exert pressure, is nothing but an abuse of process of law, and therefore, it deserves to be quashed at the threshold.
5. Learned APP, on the other hand, submitted that the FIR contains allegations of threats to life and, if accepted, prima facie discloses an offence under Section 506(2) IPC. The learned APP submitted that the investigation should be permitted to proceed so that the truth of the allegations could be tested.
6. I have heard learned advocates for both the sides and perused the record. The incident in question revolves around a momentary altercation on a public road, occasioned by the complainant honking his motorbike horn. The alleged abuses and threats to life appear to have arisen in the heat of the moment, with no material suggesting prior enmity, use of weapons, or any escalation beyond a verbal exchange. The presence of the complainant's family members during Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:42:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8840/2018 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined the incident further indicates an impulsive reaction rather than a premeditated act of intimidation capable of attracting Section 506(2) IPC.
6.1. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the petition is not pressed qua petitioner Nos. 1 and 3, which points to reconciliation or settlement with respect to a majority of the accused, thereby undermining the complainant's assertion of a grave threat. The FIR, lodged promptly upon narration to a neighbour, lacks independent corroboration of the alleged threats at the threshold. In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly when the offences under Sections 504 and 506(2) IPC pertain to a trivial dispute that could have been resolved without recourse to protracted litigation.
7. It would be apposite to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein, in Paragraph 102, it is held as under:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch. 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 Art. 226 or the inherent powers under sec. 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 Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:42:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8840/2018 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined 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 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 sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of sec. 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 sec. 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 Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:42:27 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8840/2018 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined 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."
8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings against petitioner No. 2 would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR being II-3040 of 2018, registered with Halvad Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC, insofar as it pertains to petitioner No. 2, together with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, stands quashed and set aside. The petition is dismissed as not pressed qua petitioner Nos. 1 and 3. The rule is made absolute accordingly, in the terms aforesaid. No order as to costs.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:42:27 IST 2025