Sanjaykumar Pravinchand Jain vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 18258 Guj

    R/CR.MA/22332/2017                            JUDGMENT DATED: 09/12/2021



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 22332 of 2017
                                  With
               R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9872 of 2017


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI                           Sd/-

================================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to                   --
      see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                               --

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the              --
      judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of law              --
      as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
      order made thereunder ?

================================================================
                SANJAYKUMAR PRAVINCHAND JAIN & 2 other(s)
                                Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NISARG S. SHAH for MR NM KAPADIA(394) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,2,3
MR PRANAV TRIVEDI, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(2) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS(65) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

                            Date : 09/12/2021
                            ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This petitioners in both the matters are challenging the First Information Reports wherein the Sections invoked are 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

R/CR.MA/22332/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/12/2021

2. Both the First Information Reports lodged are for the same incident, where the aggrieved have made a counter allegation for the incident which is alleged to have occurred for obstructing the right of way to go towards the Office at Panjrapole and it is alleged that they were stopped and not allowed to enter and also their vehicles were not allowed to enter the Panjrapole premises.

3. The complainant in the First Information Report bearing C.R. No.II-3108/2016 is Sanjay Pravinchandra Jain who is the Trustee in the Panjrapole and the allegations is against the adjoining premises owner. It is stated that there are about 7 Trustees in Borsad Panjrapole and the complainant is serving in the said Panjrapole since the last 10 years. One - Dilipbhai Ranchhodbhai Shah is the administrator of the Trust. It is stated by the complainant that they have a right of way of vehicles and on 05.01.2016, they had filed an Appeal before the Collector and temporary injunction was granted on 12.01.2016. Inspite of the order of the Collector under Section 66 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, which was to the effect of removing the steps and pillars and other illegal construction made by the owner of the property being City Survey No.6/18/1/A which was falling on the 21 feet road facing Borsad Panjrapole, by the encroachment on the road, they were obstructed on their right of way.

R/CR.MA/22332/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/12/2021

4. The complainant in the First Information Report bearing C.R. No.II-3106/2016 is Rajeshbhai Manibhai Panchal who had stated that they are residing in the property as a joint family and the old house was demolished. Permission was sought for new construction which was received on 08.10.2015 from the Mamlatdar Office, Borsad and the dispute arose with the management of the Panjrapole. The trustee - Dilipbhai Ranchhodbhai Shah has given his objection before the Nagarpalika against the permission and when they had started construction of their house, the Borsad Nagarpalika authority had stopped the construction and it is alleged that they were waiting for the permission, but as it could not be received, a Caveat Application No.51/2015 was filed and thereafter, states that the construction work was initiated. The complainant states that the management of the Panjrapole had moved the Collector at Anand and by an order dated 19.04.2016, certain alleged encroachment was removed and they being aggrieved by the order of the Collector, had moved this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.7885/2016 and after the hearing, this Court by an order dated 23.06.2016 had ordered for maintaining status-quo. The complainant states that thereafter, no further construction has been made and it is also stated that the Borsad Panjrapole has filed a Civil Application No.4468/2016.

R/CR.MA/22332/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/12/2021

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pranav Trivedi tenders before this Court the Report of the Borsad Town Police Station. Let the same be taken on record.

6. It appears that the dispute is with regard to the right of way. Both the parties are before the competent authority for agitating their rights. The grievance is also carried before this Court and the matter is still under adjudication. The sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code which are invoked in both the First Information Reports.

7. I have heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the records of the case. The tenure of the First Information Report does not suggest any intimidation by any of the parties.

Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus :-

"506. Punishment for criminal intimidation. -- Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."

R/CR.MA/22332/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/12/2021

8. The provision under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code makes it clear that in relation to criminal intimidation before any offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had the intention to cause harm to the complainant. Mere threat given by the accused without the intention to cause harm would not constitute an offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, no specific offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code are noted in both the First Information Reports. The dispute is regarding the right of way and those civil rights can be agitated before the competent Court. This Court does not find any reasons to permit both the sides to carry on with the trial and it would be waste of precious time of the Court.

9. In the result, both the applications are allowed. In the result, the First Information Report being C.R. No.II-3108 of 2016 registered with Borsad Town Police Station, Anand, the chargesheet bearing No.133/2016 as also the Criminal Case No.2769 of 2016 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Borsad, District Anand as also the the First Information Report being C.R. No.II-3106 of 2016 registered with Borsad Town Police Station, Anand, the chargesheet bearing No.132/2016 as also the Criminal Case No.2767 of 2016 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Borsad,

R/CR.MA/22332/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/12/2021

District Anand and all other consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.

Sd/-

(GITA GOPI,J) Caroline