Yashwantbhai Krushnalal Barot vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 10129 Guj

      R/CR.MA/973/2016                           ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 973 of 2016

=============================================
                     YASHWANTBHAI KRUSHNALAL BAROT
                                 Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS M BAROT(2964) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. DIVYANG A RAMANI(7180) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                             Date : 15/12/2022

                               ORAL ORDER

1. By way of present application, the applicant herein has prayed for quashing of proceedings of Criminal Case No.2129 of 2015 pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana arising out of the impugned FIR being II - C.R. No.192 of 2015 registered with the Kadi Police Station, Dist.: Mehsana, for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR qua the applicant herein.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of present application herein reads thus:

2.1 The applicant herein manages and look after the activities of Raghunath Temple, Kadi. The said temple used to

R/CR.MA/973/2016 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

get water from the tube well situated in the field of Nagarbhai Patel, in the said tube well, the temple has also part ownership along with other persons. However, the supply of water from the field of Nagarbhai Patel to the temple has been disrupted by the respondent No.2 herein. The respondent No.2, having disconnected supply of water to the temple, was further desirous of obtaining supply of water to his agriculture field by any means.

2.2 In view of above, the respondent No.2 filed the impugned FIR alleging that the complainant needed water for 5 vighas of agriculture land and therefore, he approached Nagarbhai Patel, who in turn told the informant that it was not feasible to supply water to him. That, as the crops of respondent No.2 was without being supplied with water, the respondent No.2 went to the residence of Nagarbhai Patel on 10.09.2015 at around 6.00 pm to 6.15 pm where, from the respondent No.2's mobile, the respondent No.2 spoke to the present petitioner, who abused the respondent No.2 over telephone and told the informant that the water will not be supplied to him.

2.5 The impugned FIR subsequently culminated into the chargesheet dated 13.09.2015 which is duly produced at Annexure - B page 17. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant herein has approached this Court for quashing of the impugned FIR.

3. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, while issuing Rule vide order dated 13.01.2016, granted ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph 11(B).

R/CR.MA/973/2016 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

4. Heard Mr. Tejas Barot, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant, Mr. Soaham Joshi, the learned APP for the respondent No.1 - State and Mr. Divyang Ramani, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2.

5. Mr. Tejas Barot, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant, vehemently submitted that the bare reading of the impugned FIR, which has culminated into the chargesheet, do not constitute an offence as alleged punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. Mr. Barot, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant also submitted that as it was not possible to supply water to the field of respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 tried to resort to illegal means and tried to pressurize and intimidate the applicant and others to exceed to illegal demand of the respondent No.2 and it is only due to such reason, the impugned FIR has been lodged. Mr. Barot, the learned advocate submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR can be said to be vague and even on the perusal of the papers of chargesheet, no offences can be said to have been committed by the applicant herein and the proceedings, against the applicant are required to be quashed. Mr. Barot, the learned advocate further submitted that the provision of Section 507 alleged to have been invoked against the applicant herein also, does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 507 of the Code inasmuch as there was no anonymous communication between the parties over the telephone which would constitute an offence punishable under Section 507 of the Code.

R/CR.MA/973/2016 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

6. Mr. Soaham Joshi, the learned APP appearing for the respondent No.1- State, submitted that the FIR has culminated into a chargesheet wherein Criminal Case No. 2129 of 2015 is registered before the concerned Court and therefore, the applicant be relegated to the alternative remedy by filing an appeal before the concerned Atrocity Court. Mr. Joshi, the learned APP also relied on the evidence which has been placed on record by the learned advocate appearing for the applicant and submitted that prima facie case is made out against the applicant herein and therefore, this Court may not entertain the present application.

7. Mr. Divyang Ramani, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 - original complainant herein, supplemented the submissions advanced by Mr. Joshi, the learned APP, and placing reliance on the statement of Nagarbhai Patel, which is duly produced at page 37 of the application, submitted that the present application may not be entertained.

8. Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties, at this stage, this Court deems it fit to refer the provisions of law. Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act reads thus:

"Section 3(1)(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view."

8.1 Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus:

R/CR.MA/973/2016 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

"507. Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication.-- Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment provided for the offence by the last preceding section."

9. It is also apposite to refer to the position of law. The Apex Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2008) 12SCC 531 held as under:

6. In the instant case, the allegation of respondent No.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No.

3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.

9.1 Further, in the case of Swaran Singh and Others vs. State through Standing Counsel and Another reported in (2008) 8SCC 435, the Apex Court has held as under:

33. We have already stated above that in today's context even calling a person `Chamar' ordinarily amounts to intentionally insulting that person with intent to humiliate him. It is evident from a perusal of the FIR that appellant No. 1, Swaran Singh joined his wife and daughter in insulting Vinod Nagar, and he also used the word `Chamar' in a derogatory sense. However, a perusal of the F.I.R. shows that Swaran Singh did not use these offensive words in the public view. There is nothing in the F.I.R. to

R/CR.MA/973/2016 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

show that any member of the public was present when Swaran Singh uttered these words, or that the place where he uttered them was a place which ordinarily could be seen by the public. Hence in our opinion no prima facie offence is made out against appellant no.1.

9.2 This Court, in Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.3927 of 2017 and allied matters by the CAV judgment dated 10.04.2015, held as under:

"17. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the I.P.C. makes it clear that a part of it relates to a criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Let me assume for the moment, what has been alleged in the complaint is true, even then, mere threats given by the accused, not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant, would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation."

10. Considering the facts of present case, the position of law and provisions of the Act, this Court is of the view that the words as alleged to be uttered by the applicant herein do not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. Admittedly, the words allegedly uttered by the applicant herein are over the telephone conversation and the same are not uttered in the public view. The basic ingredient of Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act is that a word uttered intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. For the said reason, in view of this Court, the aforesaid ingredients are not constituted for the complaint to be maintained under Atrocities Act. The impugned FIR does not satisfy the basic ingredients of Section 507 as referred above as there is no anonymous communication between the applicant and the complainant and therefore, in view of this

R/CR.MA/973/2016 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022

Court, it cannot be said that the applicant has committed any offence under Section 507 of the IPC. For the said reason, the impugned FIR and the consequential proceedings are required to be terminated against the applicant herein.

11. Resultantly, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of the Code, this application is allowed and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.2129 of 2015 pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mehsana arising out of the impugned FIR being II - C.R. No.192 of 2015 registered with the Kadi Police Station, Dist.: Mehsana against present applicant is hereby quashed and set aside and all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. including charge- sheet, if any, are also stand terminated.

12. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Interim relief, if any granted, stands vacated. Direct service is permitted.

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)

NEHA