Gujarat High Court
Labhendrabhai Ramjibhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 3 December, 2021
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
R/CR.MA/8696/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 8696 of 2018
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12538 of 2018
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1424 of 2018
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2018
In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1424 of 2018
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1424 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution NO
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
LABHENDRABHAI RAMJIBHAI UMRETHIYA(PATEL)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
DARSHAN M VARANDANI(7357) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
Page 1 of 11
Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 07:03:06 IST 2022
R/CR.MA/8696/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 03/12/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These three applications are filed under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before
this Court by various applicants seeking to quash
the following FIRs and all other proceedings
pursuant thereto:
Cr.M.A. No. Applicant FIR Offences
8696/2018 Labhendrabhai Ramjibhai II CR No.3/18 with Sections 504,
Umrethiya (Patel) Changodar Police Station 506(2) and 114 of
dated 9.1.2018 IPC
1424/2018 Minaxiben Kanaiyalal & 2 II CR No.4/18 with Sections 504,
others Changodar Police Station 506(2) and 114 of
dated 9.1.2018 IPC
12538/2018 Labhendrabhai Ramjibhai II CR No.83/18 with Sections 428, 429,
Umrethiya (Patel) Changodar Police Station 294B, 506(2) and
dated 23.6.2018 114 of IPC and
Section 11(1)(a) of
the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals
Act
2. It appears that the dispute involved is between
members of a housing society and on a similar
issue i.e. with regard to nurturing stray dogs
within the housing society, therefore the
petitions are taken up for hearing together though
R/CR.MA/8696/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
quashment of three different FIRs have been sought
for by the respective petitioners. It would be
further pertinent to mention that vide an order
dated 21.1.2019 all the petitions were directed to
be heard together.
3. The short facts leading to the present
applications are that the parties reside in the
same society, i.e. Meadows-II, Gokuldham, Near
Eklavya School, Sanathal, Ahmedabad. The dispute
between the parties seem to be about nurturing
stray dogs in the society and quarrel ensued on
8.1.2018 at 17.30 hours between the parties. Such
a quarrel resulted in lodging of cross FIRs after
substantial delay on 9.1.2018. The cross FIRs
i.e. II-CR No.3/18 and II-CR No.4/18 are for the
offences under Section 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC.
4. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr.Hriday Buch
appearing with learned Advocate Mr.Hirak Ganguly
on behalf of the complainant - Labhendra Ramjibhai
Umrethiya (Patel), under the instruction, has
declared before this Court that he has no
objection if the FIR being II CR No.4/18
registered with Changodar Police Station and all
other proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are
R/CR.MA/8696/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
quashed.
5. Having regard to the statement made by the learned
Advocate Mr.Buch on behalf of the complainant -
Labhendra Ramjibhai Umrethiya (Patel), under the
instruction, the FIR being II CR No.4/18
registered with Changodar Police Station is
quashed along with all other proceedings initiated
pursuant thereto.
6. In view of the above, Criminal Misc. Application
No.1424 of 2018 is disposed of as allowed. Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
7. So far as the other two FIRs i.e. II CR No.3/18
and II CR No.83/18 are concerned, the same are
lodged by Minakshiben Kanaiyalal. The said FIRs
are sought to be quashed at the instance of the
accused - Labhendra Ramjibhai Umrethiya (Patel)
and Kishorbhai Mottirambhai.
8. The Criminal Misc. Application No.12538 of 2018
has been preferred by the applicants for quashing
and setting aside FIR being CR-II No.83/18
registered with Changodar Police Station,
Ahmedabad (Rural) under Sections 428, 429,
294(KH), 506(2) read with Section 114 of IPC and
Section 11(1)(a) of the Animal Cruelty Act.
R/CR.MA/8696/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
9. The Criminal Misc. Application No.8696 of 2018 has
been preferred by the applicant for quashing and
setting aside FIR being CR-II No.3/18 registered
with Changodar Police Station, Ahmedabad (Rural)
under Sections 504, 506(2) read with Section 114
of IPC.
10. Learned Advocate Mr.Hriday Buch appearing with
learned Advocate Mr.Hirak Ganguly on behalf of the
applicants would submit that the applicants are
senior citizens and have no antecedents of being
involved in any criminal case herein before.
Learned Advocate Mr.Buch would submit that the
parties are residing in the same society and the
present dispute has arisen out of a trivial issue.
Mr.Buch would submit that the offences as alleged
in the FIRs are not constituted and the same were
filed at a later stage and the delay occurred in
filing the same is not explained at all. He would
further submit that the offences under Section 504
and Section 506(2) of IPC would not be constituted
inasmuch as the informant has not suffered any
alarm or threat allegedly given by the accused.
Mr.Buch would also submit that the offence under
Section 428 and Section 429 of IPC would not be
R/CR.MA/8696/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
made out as there was no intention or knowledge on
the part of the accused to kill, maim or render
stray dog useless. Learned Advocate Mr.Buch would
submit that there was no intentional harm caused
to the stray dogs as the dogs tried to chase a
young boy which resulted the young boy getting
injured, and therefore, the accused persons had
tried to see that the dogs did not cause further
harm to the young boy and in the process, the
stray dogs had to be frightened away. Thus, in the
submission of Mr.Buch for the applicants, by no
stretch of imagination, the action of the accused
would amount to mischief within the meaning of
Sections 428 and 429 of IPC. It has also been
contended that the allegation with regard to
Section 294B of IPC is false and baseless as is
seen from the FIR itself. Mr.Buch would submit
that there is no allegation that the accused
persons uttered any obscene words in public place.
He would submit that the offence under Section 11
of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act is not
constituted in absence of any intention to cause
injury to stray dogs. Learned Advocate Mr.Buch
for the applicants would submit that as the entire
R/CR.MA/8696/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
dispute has arisen from a trivial issue and the
applicant has already agreed to quash the cross
Complaint/FIR being II CR No.4/18, therefore, he
prays that both the FIRs registered against the
accused persons may also be quashed.
11. Learned Advocate Mr.Zubin Bharda appearing for the
complainant in the aforesaid FIRs would strongly
object to the prayer made by the accused persons
to quash the FIRs. He would submit that both the
FIRs make out a prima facie case which
necessitates investigation, and therefore, the
extraordinary powers vested with this Court under
Section 482 may not be exercised. He would also
state that the accused persons had threatened and
abused the informant and her relatives. He would
submit that the accused persons had thrown stones
and wooden logs at the stray dogs which resulted
in serious injury and death of two dogs, and
therefore, there is a strong prima facie case and
all ingredients of the alleged offences are
constituted. Therefore the FIRs may not be
quashed.
12. The learned APP Ms.Mehta appearing for the
respondent State has supported the contentions of
R/CR.MA/8696/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
learned Advocate Mr.Bharda and would pray that the
applications may be rejected.
13. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties
and having gone through the material on record,
the Court is of the opinion that the following
aspects require consideration:-
13.1. That there are two separate incidents; one
had happened at 17.30 hours on 8.1.2018. There
are cross FIRs lodged with regard to the said
incident after substantial delay on 9.1.2018.
The cross FIRs are under Sections 504 and 506(2)
of IPC. The FIRs do not reveal that the
informant in the cross cases actually suffered
any threat or alarm on account of the incident
in question. Out of the cross cases, one FIR
has already been quashed with the consent of the
complainant. This Court finds that the
complainant and/or other witnesses have actually
not suffered any threat or alarm, which is a
necessary concomitant for commission of offences
under Section 504 and 506(2) of IPC. Therefore,
no useful purpose would be served to keep the
other FIR pending.
13.2. The incident of 8.1.2018 is a quarrel that
R/CR.MA/8696/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
took place between the neighbours. The cause of
dispute is for nurturing stray dogs in the
society premises by a family. That was opposed
by the other set of neighbours on the ground of
annoyance and safety. Thus, the cause of
dispute is very trivial.
13.3. The second incident had occurred on
31.3.2018 at 17.15 hours. The FIR in connection
with the said incident is lodged on 23.6.2018.
No reasons are coming forth for such a long
delay in lodging the FIR.
13.4. Admittedly, the second incident is also with
regard to stray dogs. The FIR levels
allegations against 15 people who are residents
of the same society and the two accused persons
- applicants of Criminal Misc. Application
No.12538 of 2018 are named. No specific overt
act is attributed to the said applicants for
causing injury to the stray dogs. There appears
to be no intentional killing, poisoning or
maiming of stray dogs at the instance of the
present applicants - accused. Thus, the
offences would not be constituted.
13.5. The dispute is of a trivial nature. The
R/CR.MA/8696/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
complainant and her family members appear to be
nature lovers who take care of stray dogs. While
the complainant in both these complaints is well
within her rights to rear dogs stray or
otherwise within her home/compound subject to
the condition that due care should be taken that
the dogs do not cause any nuisance or harm to
any person/property. At the same time, the
accused party would be well within their rights
to complain/take appropriate steps in accordance
with law, if any dog being reared/nurtured by
the complainant causes any nuisance/harm to any
person or property. The residents appear to be
educated people residing in the same society and
it is hoped that neighbours do not quarrel on
such trivial issue and peace and harmony should
prevail in such a residential society.
14. In view of the above, the FIRs being II CR No.3/18
and II CR No.83/18 registered with Changodar
Police Station and all other proceedings initiated
pursuant thereto are hereby quashed in the
interest of justice.
15. The Criminal Misc. Application Nos.8696 of 2018
and 12538 of 2018 are allowed to the aforesaid
R/CR.MA/8696/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
extent. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
16. In view of the above judgement passed in the
main matters, Criminal Misc. Applications No.1 of
2018 and No.1 of 2020 in Criminal Misc. Application
No.1424 of 2018 do not survive and are disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
V.V.P. PODUVAL
