Gujarat High Court
Rameshkumar Jadavbhai Savani I.P.S vs The State Of Gujarat on 6 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/501/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER
PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 501 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
RAMESHKUMAR JADAVBHAI SAVANI I.P.S.,
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
============================================
Appearance:
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 06/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of filing present revision application under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - accused has sought for following relief :
"[A] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, fast Track Court No.10, Nadiad dtd. July 15, 2006 below Application Ex.38 directing the present petitioner to be joined as an accused in Sessions Case No.144 of 2001."
2. The brief facts of the present case are as under :-
2.1. That the applicant was serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Nadiad during 1992-94. On 28.05.1993, reitred Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/501/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Head Constrable RM Vaghela, father of Constable Bipin Vaghela attached to Limbasi Police Station and describing himself as a social worker, lodged FIR against the applicant, four others and a mob of about 100 persons for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 395, 120B, 34 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(11) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act"). The complainant alleged that he was informed by one Keshavkumar about assault on his son Bipin, who was assisting PSI Vaghela in investigation of CR No.I-21/1993 of Limbasi Police Station for offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. While recording statements of Police Constable Badesing and Head Constable Ramjibhai near Ramji Bhuvan at about 04.30 p.m., the applicant along with Popatbhai Kanubhai, Rajubhai Shah and others with a mob of 100 persons arrived, abused them, demanded tying Bipin and PSI Vaghela with rope and taking them to police station; the applicant used caste name, instigated the mob, who assaulted Bipin and robbed his wrist watch, chain and Rs.700/- besides threatening dismissal from the service if complaint was lodged.
Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:10 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/501/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined 2.2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against 10 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 332, 333 and 506(2) of the IPC and the Investigating Officer submitted a report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Matar, wherein, he has reported that the victim was not a member of Scheduled Caste and he is Christian by birther and therefore, no offence is made out under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. The Investigating Officer has submitted another report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Code"), stating that no offence is made out against the applicant and therefore, no chalan was filed under Section 173 of the Code. 2.3. The remaining accused were charge-sheeted and the learned Magistrate considering the charges triable by Sessions Court committed the case to the Fast Track Court No.10, Nadiad (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "Sessions Court") as envisaged under Section 209 of the Code. The matter is registered and numbered as Sessions Case No.144 of 2001.
2.4. The learned Fast Track Court No.10, Nadiad framed the charge against those accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 332, 395, 120B read with Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/501/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Sections 149 and 34 of the IPC. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined two witnesses PW No.1 - Ratnaji Muljibhai Vaghela i.e. complainant who is father of the injured at Exhibit 34 and PW-2 Bipinbhai Vaghela i.e. victim of the incident at Exhibit 36.
2.5. Before cross-examination of the PW-2, the learned APP attached with the learned trial Court submitted an application at Exhibit 38 under Section 319 of the Code, to join the present applicant as an accused. The learned Sessions Court vide order dated 15.07.2006, allowed the application at Exhibit 38 and ordered the present applicant to be joined as an accused and the witnesses examined were ordered to be recalled. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2006 below Exhibit 38, the present applicant has filed the present revision application.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. B. M. Mangukiya, for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval, for the respondent - State, at length.
4. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perusing the evidence it reveals that the learned Sessions Court has invoked the power under Section 319 of the Code while recording the evidence of PW-1 - Ratnaji Muljibhai Vaghela i.e. complainant who is father of the injured at Exhibit 34, and in Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/501/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined context that the applicant had insulted and used derogatory language against the victim and also keeping in mind the provision of Atrocities Act the Sessions Judge has assigned the reasons. If we peruse the evidence it appears that the applicant was Deputy Superintendent of Police and the complainant was his Sub-ordinate when the alleged incident took place. On earlier point of time the applicant was released and report under Section 169 of the Code was filed before the learned JMFC and even sanction was not accorded. Without completing recording of evidence of PW-2 and even he was not cross-examined and straightaway application under Section 319 of the Code was filed by the prosecution. Considering that the applicant is involved in the alleged offence and learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence of PW-1 examined at Exhibit 34, wherein, he has clearly stated that at the time of incident he was not present and based on the information received from the people he has lodged the complaint and he has also admitted that as per the information received or gathered based on that he has submitted that the present application in the capacity of Deputy Superintendent of Police was unanswerable. Except this no evidence reveals from the PW-1. So far the PW-2 is concerned he examined at Exhibit 36, he happens to be son of the PW-1 complainant and he has also deposed on the same line of the PW-1, whereas, his cross-examination remained incomplete. Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:10 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/501/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined Thereafter, the prosecution has filed an application under Section 319 of the Code to join the present applicant as an accused in the present offence. The learned Sessions Judge assigned the reasons based on which invocation of Atrocities Act and intentional insult was done qua caste of the victim.
5. Learned Advocate for the applicant has disputed the caste and applicability of Atrocities Act as no material is collected or produced on record. Perusing the charge-sheet papers and charge framed by the learned Sessions Court, the provisions of Atrocities Act are not invocable as well as in this regard no further discussion is required.
6. Now coming back to the offence qua insult or causing injury, no such evidence revealed which may be considered as enough or sufficient more than prima facie evidence which suggest involvement of the applicant in the present offence. Mere, suspicion of involvement of the proposed accused - applicant is not sufficient and to proceed against the proposed accused there must be some material or evidence which suggest more than prima facie evidence regarding involvement of the applicant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines as to under which circumstances the provision of Section 319 of the Code is required to be invoked and further also directed as to how to prevent Section 319 and principle is also summarized in the case Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/501/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined between Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 91; the Hon'ble Constitutional Bench in case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2023) 1 SCC 89; in case between Juhru and others Vs. Karim and another, reported in (2023) 5 SCC 406, in case between Naveen Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 537, as well as Michael Machado Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 262, it clearly reveals the power of summoning under Section 319 of the Code is not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more than a prima facie case is sine qua non to summon an additional accused. With a view to prevent the frequent misuse to power to summon additional accused under Section 319 of the Code, and in conformity with the binding judicial dictums of the Supreme Court, the procedural safeguard can be that ordinarily the summoning of a person at the very threshold of the trial may be discouraged and the trial court must evaluate the evidence against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge whether such material, more or less, carry the same weightage and value as has been testified against those who are already facing trial. In the absence of any credible evidence, the power under Section 319 of the Code ought not to be invoked.
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the vie that the learned Sesssions Judge has committed error in passing the impugned Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:10 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/501/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026 undefined order and therefore interference of this Court is required keeping in mind the aforesaid authorities qua exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code. Herein the learned Sessions Judge has improperly exercised the discretion hence the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.
8. Accordingly, present revision application is allowed. The order dated 15.07.2006, below Exhibit 38, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 10th Fast Track Court, Nadiad in Sessions Case No.144 of 2001 is hereby quashed and set aside.
9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid settled principle of law it is kept open for that if the prosecution is able to lead any prima facie evidence which suggest involvement of the applicant, in that event it is kept open for the learned Sessions Judge to exercise the discretion, without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in the present order.
10. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to proceed with the matter.
11. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) ANKIT JANSARI Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by ANKIT YOGESHBHAI JANSARI(HCW0109) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Thu May 07 21:47:10 IST 2026