Bhagsingh Dayalsingh Saini vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 4989 Guj

     R/CR.MA/1023/2014                              JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2023




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1023 of 2014


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

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

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 ?

==========================================================
                         BHAGSINGH DAYALSINGH SAINI
                                   Versus
                         STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR LB DABHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                Date : 28/06/2023

                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Misc. Application is filed by Bhagsingh Dayalsingh Saini under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking relief to quash the complaint registered as

R/CR.MA/1023/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2023

C.R.No.II-3014 of 2014 with Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence under sections 323, 294(B), 506(1) and 114 of IPC and section 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act against present petitioner as well as his son - Bablibhai Saini.

2. Vide order dated 22.01.2014, Rule was issued and interim relief in terms of para - 6(C) was granted.

3. It is alleged in the complaint by the complainant that on 05.01.2014 at about 1.45 pm, when complainant, Sandhipbhai and Billubhai Bhatia were present in group, at that time, present petitioner and his son were present in Gurudawara and in their presence, donation box which was kept in worship room was opened. The complainant at the relevant time was going towards holy Guru Granth Sahib, accused Bablibhai was starring at him, but that gesture has been ignored. However, accused Bablibhai came near him and pushed him, at that time, worshipers who were present at the spot were gathered. Said accused Babli took out revolver from his pocket and threatened the complainant. As crowd was gathered, he put back weapon. The petitioner was also present and he threatened the complainant for dire consequences saying that he has 500 men with him and he will burn the complainant as well as his house. The complainant having passed through aforesaid incident lodged complaint before the Vastrapur Police Station as stated herein above.

3.1. Bablibhai who is son of the present petitioner and arraigned as accused in the ofence was arrested and was taken in custody by the police and he was enlarged on regular bail. During police custody period, the police was not able to find out

R/CR.MA/1023/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2023

any weapon or could not recover it.

4. In the background of above facts, since the petitioner feels that he has been falsely arraigned in the FIR and no offence is made out on plain reading of the FIR, he has preferred this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of FIR / complaint.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda for the petitioner would submit that one year back to the incident, present petitioner has filed complaint before the Joint Charity Commissioner under section 41(A) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, as the complainant was not maintaining accounts of donation after donation box was opened. He would further submit Joint Charity Commissioner upon complaint of the present petitioner issued direction which is at page no.42 of the petition and directed the complainant to maintain account of charity received in the donation box. The complainant was therefore aggrieved and has filed impugned complaint as counter blast. He would further submit that the petitioner was aged 73 years at the relevant time when FIR / complaint was lodged and at present he is 83 years. He would further submit that on bare reading of FIR which is filed 3 days later, does not disclose any offence said to have been committed by the present petitioner. Taking this Court through contents of FIR, he would submit that it is alleged that present petitioner has passed threat upon the complainant to withdraw complaint, otherwise, as the petitioner has 500 persons with him, he will burn complainant and his house. He would submit that except this allegations there is no allegations against the petitioner. Referring to judgment of this

R/CR.MA/1023/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2023

Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.4145 of 2012, he would submit that since for section 503 of IPC punishment of which is provided under section 506 are not proved, allowing prosecution against the petitioner would not constitute fruitful purpose. He would further submit that in fact allowing such allegations without being satisfied by ingredients under section 506 of IPC would be abuse of process on face of it and therefore, he would submit to allow the petitioner and grant prayer as prayed for.

6. Opposing the petition and opposing the arguments of learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.B.Dabhi would submit that there is no substance in the submission that complaint / FIR was filed as counter blast to the complaint made to the Charity Commissioner by the petitioner. He would further submit that considering time gap between the order passed by the Charity Commissioner directing the complainant to keep account of the charity received in the donation and incident, there is no proximity nor there is any nexus and therefore, it is incorrect to say that complaint is filed keeping grudge and is counter blast to the complaint made to the Charity Commissioner. He would further submit that Investigating Officer has collected DVD which indicates gathering of group and same taking on high pitch. He would further submit that case of the complainant is supported by eye witness, in that circumstances, whatever is argued by learned advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda for the petitioner atleast can be defence of the accused and cannot be consider as substantive force to quash the complaint. He would further submit that whatever is being argued by learned advocate Mr. Bharda for the petitioner could be tested during trial of the

R/CR.MA/1023/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2023

offence. Hence, he would submit to dismiss the petition.

7. Regard had being to rival submissions of both the sides, what reflects from the FIR is that though FIR is filed for the offence under section 323, 294(B), 506(1) and 114 of IPC read with section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act, allegations levelled against the present petitioner is with regard to criminal intimidation. FIR clearly segregates role of two accused. According to the complainant, present petitioner has passed threat for withdrawing the complaint and further passed threat that he has 500 persons and he will come and burn him and his house. Apart from this, there is no other and further allegations are levelled against the present petitioner.

8. Section 506 of IPC is providing punishment for criminal intimidation. Section 506 of IPC reads as under : -

"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 and 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/1023/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2023

9. The essential ingredients of criminal intimidation has been defined under section 503 of IPC. For determination of allegations whether FIR discloses that petitioner has committed offence under section 503 of IPC, let refer to section 503 of IPC, which reads as under :-

"503. Criminal intimidation.--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."

10. What perceives on bare reading of section 503 with section 506 of IPC is that in order to establish criminal intimidation, prima facie it must disclose that accused had intention to cause alarm to complainant. Mere passing threats by the accused without any intention to cause alarm to the complainant, but with a view to deterring him from doing any work or not to do any work or other things would not constitute offence of criminal intimidation.

11. On bare reading of FIR, it does not disclose any of the ingredients to constitute offence under section 506 of IPC. Thus, in my view, allegations against the accused / petitioner even on face of FIR does not stand and allowing such FIR against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law.

R/CR.MA/1023/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/06/2023

12. In the result, this application is allowed. FIR being CR No.II-3014 of 2014 registered with Vastrapur Police Station, Ahmedabad for the offence under sections 323, 294(B), 506(1) and 114 of IPC and section 25(1)(B) of the Arms Act is quashed so far as present petitioner - Bhagsingh Dayalsingh Saini is concerned. Rule is made absolute.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH