Gujarat High Court
Hemantbhai Hasmukhlal Jaiswal vs State Of Gujarat on 24 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20754/2014 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 20754 of 2014
==========================================================
HEMANTBHAI HASMUKHLAL JAISWAL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHETAN K PANDYA(1973) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR CHINTAN DAVE, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 24/09/2025
ORAL ORDER QUA PETITIONERS NO.1
As per order dated 29.1.2015, learned advocate for the petitioners has not pressed present petition qua petitioner No.1.
ORAL ORDER QUA PETITIONERS NOS.2 & 31. 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 petitioners prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.II - 105 OF 2014 registered with Bodeli Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 114 of the IPC, u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short "the Act") as well as all Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:20:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20754/2014 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioners herein.
3. Seeking quashment of the impugned FIR, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that bare reading of the FIR does not disclose any case against the petitioners. He 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 petitioners. So far as offences under the Atrocities Act is concerned, learned advocate for the petitioners would further submit that taking the FIR on its face value, it does not specify that which derogatory words are spoken by the petitioners to lower down the caste of the complainant. He 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. He 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 petitioners. He would further submit that no specific abusive language is noticeable from the FIR and it does not therefore attract criminal intimidation. He has placed on record copy of the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Court, Chhotaudepur in Atrocity Case No.2 of 2017, whereby the learned Special Court has acquitted the petitioner No.1 from the charges of offence under the provisions of the IPC. He would further submit that there is three months delay in filing the FIR and no such explanation is come forward.
3.1 Upon such submission, Learned advocate for the Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:20:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20754/2014 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined petitioners prays to allow this petition.
4. Per contra, learned APP 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 petitioners as the petitioners 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. 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".
6. 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 petitioners have insulted any member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe within public view. Under these circumstances, since basic ingredients of Atrocities Act are Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:20:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20754/2014 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined missing in the FIR, further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the petitioners would be abuse of process of law. Prima facie, it appears that the criminal proceedings are manifestly launched with mala fide and ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in 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 with intent to humiliate in place within public view. It is submitted that basic ingredients are missing in the FIR, then permitting such complaint to continue and to compel the accused to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.
8. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the proposition of law, which reads as under:-
"(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 ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the code.
(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:20:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20754/2014 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.
(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 bare engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the institution 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 malafide 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."
8.1 The findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 1,3 and 7 are attracted in the present case. In view of above, present petition deserves consideration.
9. This Court is quite conscious that power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is extraordinary power and should be used sparingly, as the exercise of such power would scuttle the FIR at the threshold. But, if the FIR fails to make out essential ingredients of the offence, power should be exercised.
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:20:45 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20754/2014 ORDER DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined
10. Resultantly, this application is allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R.No.II - 105 OF 2014 registered with Bodeli Police Station filed against the present petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. Direct service is permitted.
11. The State, if so thinks fit, would be at liberty to recover the amount of compensation, if any, granted to the complainant.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:20:45 IST 2025