Gujarat High Court

Ritaben Kamiyelbhai Macwan vs State Of Gujarat on 12 December, 2023

                                                                                            NEUTRAL CITATION




     R/CR.MA/9375/2017                                         ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

                                                                                             undefined




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                   FIR/ORDER) NO. 9375 of 2017

==========================================================
                 RITABEN KAMIYELBHAI MACWAN & 2 other(s)
                                Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS ALKABEN R PATEL(6569) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR TEJAS M BAROT(2964) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. DHAWAN JAYSWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                 Date : 12/12/2023
                                  ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. The present application is filed for seeking

following reliefs:

"a. Your Lordships be pleased to admit this application.

b. Your Lordships be pleased to order to quash and set aside the FIR, and all subsequent actions, before the Vasad Police Station being II CR No16 of 2017 for the offences u/s. 323, 506 (2) of IP Code and sec. 33 (2) (v), 3 (1) (R) (S) of the Atrocities Act.

c. Your Lordships be pleased stay the further proceedings of the FIR, and all subsequent actions,

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

before the Vasad Police Station being II CR No16 of 2017 for the offences u/s. 323, 506 (2) of IP Code and sec. 33 (2) (v), 3 (1) (R) (S) of the Atrocities Act pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition.

d. Your Lordships be pleased to grant any other relief/ s as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Brief facts as per the case of the applicants in this

application are as such that the complainant is residing

with her family in Rohit vas area of village Mogar. The

next area to their Vas is Khristi Mohalla. There is

Faliya of Rohit and having road passing by the house of

Ramanbhai Nanjibhai Macvan. It is close to the ground for tannery work of the Rohit. The open land and the

house are adjacent. The applicant No. 1 started to raise

wall and so the complainant had filed Civil Suit in

Anand Court. On 14.03.2017 the applicants started to dig

the land for rising wall. Therefore the brother of father

in law of the complainant, Hirabhai gone to call the

Sarpanch of the village. Thereafter, Sarpanch Kusumben

Mahida came to the spot and asked the applicants to

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

stop the work. The applicant No.1 is mother of applicant

No.2. The applicant No. 3 is said to be contractor for

this construction work. As the work is not stopped the

complainant, her aunt in laws Diwaliben, Jayantilal

Ambalal Solanki went to the spot at about 11.30 hrs.

They asked the applicant No.1 to stop the work. At that

time the applicants started abusing the complainant and

declared that they would continue with the work. Then,

the applicants got excited and pushed the complainant

and Diwaliben. At that time, the head of the applicant

No.1 dashed with wall. All the three applicants were

abusing the complainant and uttered some word about

the caste of the complainant. They also intimidated for

life. The husband of the complainant was on his job. Thereafter with him the complainant came to police

station to register the complaint and the same is lodged.

The complainant declared that they do not desire to go

to hospital.

It is further the case of the applicants in this

application are as such that the FIR discloses the

applicant No.1 has sustained head injuries, The applicant

No.1 has lodged F.I.R. being CR I 21 of 2017 with

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

Vasad Police Station against the complainant and her

family members. Due to these injuries the applicant No.

1 was hospitalized from 14-03-2017 to 17-03-2017 as

indoor patient. The family members of the complainant

filed R.C.S. 782 of 2015 before the learned 3rd Addl.

Civil Judge, Anand for declaration and injunction. The

Ld. Civil Judge directed to maintain status quo for the

disputed road in order below exh.5 Dt. 15-02-2016. The

applicant challenged that order in Misc. Civil Appeal No. th 53 of 2016 before the District Court, Anand. The Ld. 4

(Ad-hoc) District Judge, and dismissed the appeal by

order dated 20-01-2017. The applicant filed S.C.A.2653 of

2017 before this Hon'ble Court.

It is further the case of the applicants in this

application are as such that as the question is of

measurement of the road the applicant No.1 paid fees to

the D.I.L.R. for measurement on 01-03-2017. The D.I.L.R.

visited the place and prepared map on 09-03-2017. The

D.I.L.R. also drew line over the land showing the

boundaries of the applicant No.1. Thereafter the applicant

No.1 wrote a letter to the D.S.P., Anand to provide

police protection on 08-03-2017 for the said work. The

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

road-line had become clear, therefore the applicant No. 1

prepared for raising the wall. The complainant found

that now the remedy of civil suit would not help them

therefore they assaulted the applicant No.1. Hence, the

impugned F.I.R. is lodged.

3. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave for

the applicants, Ms. Riya Patel, the learned counsel for

the respondent No.2 - complainant and Mr. Dhawan

Jayswal, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP)

for the respondent No.1 - State of Gujarat.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted

that upon a bare reading of the impugned F.I.R., it is found that prima facie, the impugned F.I.R., filed on

14.3.2017 being C.R. II 16 of 2017 under Sections 323,

504 506 (2) of IPC, read with Sections 3 (2) (v), 3 1 (R)

(S) of the Atrocities Act, is an afterthought with the

intention of creating pressure on the present applicants

as on the same day, the applicants had already lodged

an F.I.R. against the complainants herein as C.R.I 21 of

2017 with Vasad Police Station under the provisions of

143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 337, 504, and 506(2) of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

Indian Penal Code, 1973, read with Section 135 of the

Gujarat Police Act. He has submitted that considering

the time of registration of the F.I.R., the impugned

F.I.R. was lodged subsequently and as a counterblast.

Furthermore, he has submitted that upon a bare reading

of the impugned F.I.R., no offence is made out either

under the Indian Penal Code or under the provisions of

the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989. Furthermore, he has submitted that

even assuming for the sake of arguments that the

contents of the impugned F.I.R. are correct, then also

the incident has not taken place in public view, and the

ingredients of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are not satisfied. Furthermore, he has submitted that even in the

impugned F.I.R., the complainants have not averred that

the accused persons are from the non-SC/ST community.

He has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the cases of (i) Gorige Pentaiah versus State of

Andra Pradesh reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531, more

particularly Paras : 5 to 8 and 12 thereof, (ii) Hitesh

Verma versus State of Uttarakhand and Another reported

in 2020 SCC online (SC) 907, paragraphs 11 to 15, 16

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

and 18 are relevant. In view of the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of (i) Inder Mohan

Goswami and Another versus State of Uttaranchal

reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, (ii) State of Haryana V/s

Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, this Court

should exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of

the Cr.P.C. with a view to prevent the abuse of process

of law by quashing and setting aside the impugned

F.I.R. as continuation of the proceeding pursuant to the

impugned F.I.R. will amount to abuse of process of law.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, the complainant, has drawn my attention to the

affidavit-in-reply filed by the original complainant, pointing out that the applicants have been involved in

the illegal acts of encroaching on the said land.

Furthermore, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has

submitted that the complainant had already sent a

written complaint on 17.9.2015 to the DSP, Anand, and

P.I., Mahila Police Station against applicant No.1. The

said complaint reveals that applicant No.1 had

threatened the complainant for her life and limb, and

several derogatory remarks were made towards the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

complainant's caste. Furthermore, he has drawn the

attention of this Court to the subject matter of the

disputed property of land in question, whereby the Civil

Suit is also filed, which is pending, and the Civil Court,

Anand directed the parties to maintain status quo. The

Mogar Gram Panchayat sent a notice on 9.3.2017 to

applicant No.1 to shut down the construction work as

the applicant is illegally encroaching upon the land,

which is a pathway that connects several houses of

Rohitvas. Therefore, when the applicants started to dig

up the land and raise a wall on the land of the

complainant, the complainant objected to the construction

raised by the applicants. This objection irked the

applicants, and they started abusing the complainant and other persons. The applicants made derogatory remarks

about the caste of the complainant and pushed the

complainant and Diwaliben due to which her head got

dashed with the wall, and consequently, they suffered

injuries. Therefore, the offence, as alleged in the

impugned F.I.R., is made out against the accused. Hence,

she has submitted that let the investigation be carried

out as no case is made out, particularly in view of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus State of

Maharashtra and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine

SC 315, and more particularly para 80 is relevant; this

Court should not exercise the powers under Section 482

of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

6. The learned APP for respondent No. 1, the State of

Gujarat, has supported the case of the prosecution by

submitting that prima facie, the case is made out,

particularly as the cross F.I.R.s are lodged by the

parties, and the presence of the accused is prima facie

established. Therefore, he has submitted that the Court

should not exercise its inherent discretion at this stage,

which is otherwise also required to be exercised very

sparingly in view of several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. He has also submitted that the Investigating

Officer has field "A" Summary report subject to outcome

of the present application and considering all these, the

Court may pass appropriate order.

7.1. I have heard the rival submissions made at the bar

by the respective parties. I have also considered the fact

that the impugned F.I.R. are registered under the

provisions of Sections 323, 504 & 506 (2) of Indian Penal

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

Code read with Sections 3 (2) (v), 3 1 (R) (S) of the the

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, as under:

"Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code:-

323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.--

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code:-

504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.--Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code:-

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

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 1[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.

"Section 3(1)(r)(s) in The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Punishment for offences of atrocities

(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;

Section 3(2)(v) in The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:-

(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;

7.2. Furthermore, for the offences under Section 323 of

the I.P.C., the punishment is up to one year, and under

Section 504 of the I.P.C., the punishment is up to two

years. Section 506(2) of the I.P.C. carries a punishment

of up to 7 years. Therefore, Section 3(2)(v) is not

attracted in the facts of the present case. Furthermore,

considering the language of Section 3(1)(r)(s), the incident

should take place in public view. Admittedly, on a bare

reading of the impugned F.I.R., it is evident that the

incident has taken place on the private land of the

parties concerned. Moreover, there is no whisper in the impugned F.I.R. about the fact that accused persons are

falling from the non-SC/ST community, as required in

view of the judgment in view of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of (i) Hitesh Verma

versus State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in

2020 SCC online (SC) 907, it is held in paragraphs 11

to 15, 16 and 18, as under:

"11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

filed is for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands substituted by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substituted corresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads as under:

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

12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as "1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place within public view".

13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio- economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste.

14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh and Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel and Ors. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under:

"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the

13. The offence under Section 3(1)

(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights.

Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste.alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression "place within public view" with the expression "public place". A place can be a private p13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights.

                    Thus, an offence under the Act






                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




R/CR.MA/9375/2017                                             ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

                                                                                             undefined




                    would       be     made             out      when       a
                    member of the vulnerable section
                    of    the    Society           is    subjected         to
                    indignities,             humiliations               and

harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste.lace but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

(or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies."

15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered "in any place within public view" is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet."

16. There is a dispute about the possession

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

of the land which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

(ii) Gorige Pentaiah versus State of Andhra

Pradesh reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531, more

particularly Paras : 5 to 8 and 12 thereof, which read

as under :

"5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that even if all the allegations incorporated in the complaint are taken as true, even then, no offence is made out under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and under Sections 447, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. As far as Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is concerned, it reads as under :

"3(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe :-

(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."

6. In the instant case, the allegation of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

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.

7. Similarly, we find that the ingredients of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code are totally absent in the complaint. In the complaint it is not even mentioned that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

accused had intimidated or threatened the complainant or any one else. In absence of basic ingredients of the section in the complaint, no case under section 506 IPC can be sustained. Section 506 reads as under :

"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".

8. "Criminal intimidation" has been defined in Section 503 which reads as under :

"Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

12. This court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts' powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised :

(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

(iii) Sri Gulam Mustafa versus State of Karnataka reported in 2023 (0) AIJEL - SC 71008 , more particularly paras 36 to

39 thereof, which read as under :

"36. What is evincible from the extant case-law is that this Court has been consistent in interfering in such matters where purely civil disputes, more often than not, relating to land and/or money are given the colour of criminality, only for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial pressure on the party concerned, which, we reiterate, is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. In the present case, there is a huge, and quite frankly, unexplained delay of over 60 years in initiating dispute with regard to the ownership of the land in question, and the criminal case has been lodged only after failure to obtain relief in the civil suits, coupled with denial of relief in the interim therein to the respondent no.2/her family members. It is evident that resort was not being had to criminal proceedings which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is with ulterior motives, for oblique reasons and is a clear case of vengeance.

37. The Court would also note that even if the allegations are taken to be true on their face value, it is not discernible that any offence can be said to have

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

been made out under the SC/ST Act against the appellant. The complaint and FIR are frivolous, vexatious and oppressive.

38. This Court would indicate that the officers, who institute an FIR, based on any complaint, are duty bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent nature, like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on the concerned accused. The officer has to be satisfied that the provisions he seeks to invoke prima facie apply to the case at hand. We clarify that our remarks, in no manner, are to dilute the applicability of special/stringent statutes, but only to remind the police not to mechanically apply the law, dehors reference to the factual position.

39. For the reasons aforesaid, the Court finds that the High Court fell in error in not invoking its wholesome power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the FIR. Accordingly, the Impugned Judgment, being untenable in law, is set aside. Consequent thereupon, the FIR, as also any proceedings emanating therefrom, insofar as they relate to the appellant, are quashed and set aside."

7.3 Furthermore, in light of the aforesaid, this is a fit

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

case where the Court should exercise its discretion by

quashing the F.I.R. qua the offences punishable under

the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However,

considering the case prima facie, the cross F.I.R. is filed,

not only that, prior to the time of the incident, the

complainant has already complained about some threats

received from the accused. Therefore, it is not proper to

interfere qua the offences punishable under the provisions

of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, let the investigation

be carried out qua the offences under Sections 323, 504

& 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code pursuant to the

impugned F.I.R. Consequently, the impugned F.I.R. is

quashed partly qua the offences punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which is otherwise

also, permissible under the law, as the Court can quash

any F.I.R. in part by exercising the power under Section

482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

7.4 It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan

Goswami and Another versus State of Uttaranchal

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, more particularly para : 23

& 24 thereof, which read as under:

"23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts' powers under Sec. 482 CrPC. Every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. Inherent power under Sec. 482 CrPC can be exercised:

[(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;]

[(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and]

[(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.]

24. Inherent powers under Sec. 482 CrPC though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself'.

Authority of the court exists for the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/9375/2017 ORDER DATED: 12/12/2023

undefined

advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute. Discussion of decided cases."

7.5 This is a fit case where this Court should exercise

powers by partly quashing the proceeding only qua the

offences punishable qua under the provisions of the

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act. However, further investigation shall be

carried out pursuant to the offence under the provisions

of Indian Penal Code as mentioned in impugned F.I.R. and the Investigating Officer shall do needful to carry

out the investigation in accordance with law qua the

offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian

Penal Code.

8. Resultantly, the present application is partly

allowed.