Parmar Kantibhai Dharmabhai vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 5275 Guj

     R/CR.MA/4294/2014                              JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2023




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 4294 of 2014


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

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

1      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                  No
       to see the judgment ?

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                           No

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                 No
       of the judgment ?

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question                 No
       of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
       of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                         PARMAR KANTIBHAI DHARMABHAI
                                    Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VO JOSHI(5883) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. ALKA B VANIYA(6945) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. VRUNDA C. SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

                                Date : 07/07/2023

                                ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present Application has been filed by the Applicant [Original Accused] under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR being I-CR No.

R/CR.MA/4294/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2023

19 of 2014 registered with Deesa Rural Police Station, District Banaskantha for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. V.O.Joshi for the Applicant , learned Advocate Ms. Alka B. Vaniya appearing for Respondent No.2 and learned APP Ms. Vrunda Shah appearing for the Respondent - State.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that the Applicant herein had written a letter to the Taluka Development Officer on 6.2.2014 requesting him to disqualify Respondent No.2 - Shoramben, as she had given a birth to a third child on 1.10.2013, which would entail her disqualification under Section 57(A) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act as a Member.

4. The present FIR has been lodged by Respondent No.2 as a backlash to the said letter written by the present Applicant. The FIR is nothing but an afterthought. He also submitted that, as per the FIR, the alleged incident had taken place on 4.2.2014 whereas the FIR came to be lodged on 6.2.2014 i.e. after a period of two days. There is no explanation coming forth for the said delay caused in lodging the FIR. He further submitted that no incident as alleged in the FIR has ever taken place. On the contrary, on 4.2.2014, the Respondent No.2 was not present in the Panchayat Office. Thus, the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present offence. He therefore submitted to allow the present Application and quash the FIR in question.

5. The Application is opposed by learned AGP Ms. Vrunda Shah. She submitted that upon perusal of the FIR, the ingredients for the offence as alleged against the Applicant are clearly made out. She also submitted that the Applicant had tried to take physical liberty with Respondent No.2, who is a

R/CR.MA/4294/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2023

lady, and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC is also clearly made out against the Applicant. She therefore submitted to dismiss the present Application.

6. Learned Advocate Ms. Alka B. Vaniya appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 has also opposed the present Application inter alia contending that the FIR was not a counterblast nor was it an afterthought as sought to be contended on behalf of the Applicant. She submitted that the first informant was very much present in the Panchayat office when the alleged incident took place. Thus, the offences alleged in the FIR are clearly made out against the Applicant. She therefore submitted to dismiss the present FIR.

7. Heard learned Advocate for the parties and perused the record.

8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that, in the FIR, it has been stated that the alleged incident had taken place on 4.2.2014 whereas the FIR in that regard has been lodged on 6.2.2014. However, in the FIR, it has been averred by the Respondent - First Informant that, "today the accused played a joke on me and came behind me and caught my hand and told me to have physical relations with him". Upon perusal of the said averment, it is given to understand that the said incident had taken place on 6.2.2014. Thus there appears to be contradiction as regards the date of incident in the FIR itself.

9. As per the FIR, on 4.2.2014, when the Respondent - First Informant was present in the office of the Panchayat, the Applicant herein had misbehaved with her. The record indicates that on 29.01.2014, an agenda for the meeting of the Panchayat to be held on 4.2.2014 was circulated and the first informant being a member of the Panchayat had received the agenda and had also put her thumb impression acknowledging the receipt of the said agenda. The

R/CR.MA/4294/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2023

Applicant has also placed on record the attendance sheet of the meeting of the Panchayat held on 4.2.2014 which indicates that Respondent No.2 - First Informant was not present in the said meeting of the Panchayat. This indicates that Respondent No.2 was not present in the office of the Panchayat on 4.2.2014. Learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 is not in a position to dislodge the fact that Respondent No.2 was not present in the office of Panchayat on 4.2.2014.

10. The record also indicates that on 6.2.2014, the Applicant had written a letter to the Taluka Development Officer Deesa to the effect that since the Respondent No.2 had given birth to her third child on 1.10.2013, she was disqualified under the provisions of Section 57(A) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act from holding the post of a Member. It was therefore requested to pass order for disqualification of Respondent No.2 from the office. It appears that being aggrieved by the said letter written by the present Applicant to the Taluka Development Officer, Respondent No.2 has lodged the present FIR against him making reckless allegations against him. It also appears that the applicant was also earlier elected as Sarpanch of the Panchayat. Thus, there appears to be a political rivalry between the parties.

11. Considering the aforesaid aspects, the present FIR appears to be nothing but an abuse of process of law. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 (Supp.) 1 SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines as regards the cases in which the complaint should be quashed. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and / or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, such proceedings should be quashed. The present FIR is the classic case of such an

R/CR.MA/4294/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2023

instance.

12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Application is hereby allowed. The FIR being I-CR No. 19 of 2014 registered with Deesa Rural Police Station, District Banaskantha for the offence punishable under Sections 354 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and all other consequential proceedings arising there from are hereby quashed and set aside so far as it relates to the present Applicants.

Rule is made absolute.

(M. R. MENGDEY,J) J.N.W