Gujarat High Court
Ratnesh Niranjanbhai Vala vs State Of Gujarat on 6 July, 2023
Bench: Samir J. Dave
R/CR.MA/11414/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 11414 of 2023
==========================================================
RATNESH NIRANJANBHAI VALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SHIVAM N THAKKAR (10024) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JK SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 06/07/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the
complaint bearing FIR No.11191031220904 registered with
Shahibaug Police Station for the offences u/s. 376, 376(2)(n),
406, 420 and 114 of IPC r/w. Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)
(wi)(ii) and 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The respondent No.2 herein, original complainant, filed
the impugned FIR on 15.10.2022 inter alia alleging that she
joined services with the Air Pollution Department of I.C.M.R. -
National Institute of Occupational Health at Ahmedabad on
25.01.2019 as a Data Entry Operator on contractual basis.
R/CR.MA/11414/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2023
During that time, the petitioner No.1 herein was working as a
Technician in the Hygiene Department on regular post. It is
averred that after some time, they developed love relationship
and also agreed to get married. Some where in May 2020,
they indulged into physical relationship for the first time and
since then they got indulged into physical relationship on
several occasions. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 had
promised respondent No.2 that he would marry her; however,
in December 2021, the petitioner No.1 refused to marry her on
the ground that his family was against their relationship.
Hence, the impugned FIR came to be filed.
3. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Thakkar for the
petitioners that the impugned FIR has been filed after a delay
of about 10 months. The last conversation and meeting took
place some where in December 2021 but the impugned FIR
was filed only on 15.10.2022 and there is no explanation for
the said delay. It is further submitted that both petitioner No.1
and respondent No.2 were adults and they were into a love
relationship and hence, their relationship was consensual in
nature. Therefore, none of the ingredients of section 375 IPC
are present in this case.
3.1 It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that there is
nothing to show that petitioner No.1 had ever made any
R/CR.MA/11414/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2023
promise of marriage to respondent No.2 and totally baseless
allegations have been made in the complaint. Further, no
specific allegations have been made in the complaint against
any of the petitioners to attract the provisions of the Atrocities
Act. It was, accordingly, urged that the impugned complaint is
a clear abuse of the process of law and it deserves to be
quashed and set aside in exercise of the inherent powers of
this Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C.
3.2 In support of the submissions, learned advocate for the
petitioners relied upon the following judgments;
(a) M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra & others, (2021) 4 S.C.R. 1044.
(b) A.P. Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Shareholders
Welfare Association v. Ramesh Kumar Bung and others,
(2021) 6 S.C.R. 850.
(c) Salimbhai Hamidbhai Memon v. Niteshkumar
Maganbhai Patel and another, (2021) 8 S.C.R. 281.
(d) Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
another, (2022) 7 S.C.R. 156.
R/CR.MA/11414/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2023
(e) Peethambaram v. State of Kerala and another, 2023
SCC OnLine SC 553.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Thakkar for the petitioners
and learned APP Mr. J.K. Shah for the respondent State.
5. From the allegations made in the impugned FIR, it
appears that petitioner No.1 and the respondent-complainant
got into love relationship some time in the year 2020 and
made commitments to get married. It is alleged that beginning
May 2020 till December 2021, the petitioner No.1 entered into
physical relationship with the respondent-complainant on
numerous occasions at different places. It is categorically
averred in the FIR that during the interregnum, the petitioner
No.1 had promised the respondent-complainant of getting
married and had taken advantage of such promise to enter into
physical relationship with the respondent-complainant.
6. Charge-sheet has been filed in the case and as many as
26 individuals have been named as witnesses. Considering the
allegations made in the impugned FIR and when it has been
specifically averred that petitioner No.1 had indulged into
physical relationship with the respondent-complainant on the
promise of marriage, prima facie, this Court does not find this
to be a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction deserves to be
R/CR.MA/11414/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/07/2023
exercised in favour of the petitioners. Hence, none of the
decisions relied upon by learned advocate for the petitioners
would apply in the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J)
PRAVIN KARUNAN
