Hemant Bipinbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 4736 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Hemant Bipinbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 14 June, 2024

                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




     R/CR.MA/13164/2019                               ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

                                                                                       undefined




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                 FIR/ORDER) NO. 13164 of 2019

==========================================================
                           HEMANT BIPINBHAI PATEL
                                    Versus
                          STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

                             Date : 14/06/2024

                                  ORAL ORDER

1. By way of preferring present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant seeks to invoke the extraordinary powers of this Court, praying for quashing the FIR being C.R.No.I-106 of 2019 registered with Pandesara Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 457, 380, 342, 427, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for the respondent - State. Though served, none appears for respondent No.2 - original complainant.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submits that FIR is

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

filed by the complainant against the applicant on 16.06.2019, inter alia, stating that he is doing the business of scrap in Godown No.1 at Pandesara GIDC since the year 2012. He had purchased the said property from one Mr. Iftekhar @ Babubhai Ahmed Rasulbhai Malek on 15.03.2012 by fixing the amount of the said property at Rs.21,00,786/- and out of that amount, he had paid an amount of Rs.6,70,000/- at the time of execution of Agreement to Sell and rest of the amount of Rs.14,30,786/- was agreed to be paid to the seller at the time of registration of sale deed. As per the conditions of Agreement to Sell, entire amount is to be paid within a period of three months. It is further stated that immediately after the execution of Agreement to Sell, the complainant asked for the original documents from the seller but the seller did not give it to the complainant and therefore a notice was served upon the seller and a public notice was also published in the newspaper inter alia stating that complainant has purchased the property in question from Iftekharbhai through Agreement to Sell and since then he is carrying out the business of scrap in the property in question. That adjacent to his godown No.1, there is a godown of applicant (accused). The godown wherein he is doing business is originally belonging to one Vaghbakriwala which he had transferred in favour of Iftekharbhai by executing registered sale deed on 24.01.1992.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

4. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submits that as per the case of the complainant, the so-called incident occurred during the period between 8:00 p.m. on 15.06.2019 to 9:00 a.m. on 16.06.2019. As per the case of the complainant, he has closed his godown at about 8:00 p.m. on 15.06.2019 and on the very next day morning at about 9:00 O'clock, when the complainant and his wife went to their godown, at that time, they have seen one generator of non- working condition was put up in front of main gate of his godown and thereby the door of his godown was blocked by somebody. The complainant, therefore, through his adjacent godown, went to his godown and saw that the wall made up of iron sheets in between his godown and the godown of applicant has been collapsed and scrap articles worth Rs.3,50,000/- has been stolen. The complainant, therefore, went to inquire from the applicant and at that time, applicant got enraged and abused him as well as his wife and as the complainant told him not to use abusive language, the applicant got enraged and pushed the complainant and his wife and administered threat to break their hands and legs and kill them and therefore complainant has immediately called the police. The complainant has, therefore, lodged the FIR against the applicant.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submits that it is the specific case of the complainant that he has paid certain amount to Iftekharbhai and executed Agreement

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

to Sell and on the strength of the said document he has filed suit before the competent Court against Iftekharbhai. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submits that whatever contentions the complainant has made before the concerned Civil Court have not been considered by the said Court and suit filed by the complainant has been dismissed. He has tendered a copy of the said order across the Bar and submitted that grounds mentioned in the suit have not been considered by the Court concerned and as per his opinion, till date, no appeal has been preferred by the complainant challenging the said order.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submits that originally the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation has allotted the property in question (godown No.1) to one Mr. F. G. Waghbakriwala on 20.09.1991 on a lease of 99 years and since then they were in possession and occupation of the said property till 2017. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submits that as the applicant wish to purchase the property in question, said Waghbakriwala made an application to the GIDC and on payment of amount made by the applicant herein, GIDC had issued official order whereby the property in question has been transferred in favour of the applicant on 09/10.02.2017 and since then applicant is in possession and occupation of the property in question. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submits that he has already produced all the relevant documents

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

showing the possession and occupation of the property in question of the applicant along with the memo of the application.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submits that applicant has preferred Civil Suit No.403 of 2019 against the applicant and Iftekhar Ahmed Rasulbhai Malek before the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat on 13.06.2019 and along with that suit he has also preferred an application for appointment of Court Commission for the purpose of carrying out panchnama of property in question. The said application was considered by the Court and panchnama of the property in question was drawn on 16.06.2019 in presence of the applicant as well as complainant. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submits that he has already produced the copy of the panchnama along with the memo of the application. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submits that if this Hon'ble Court would go through the contents of the panchnama, in that event, it would be found out that the panchnama was drawn on the date of incident and the starting time of the panchnama is 9:20 a.m., therefore, the story created by the complainant that on the date of incident i.e. on 16.06.2019, when he and his wife were going for walk at about 9:00 a.m., the entire incident took place and therefore he called the police and immediately police reached to the place of incident, is not believable and the same story is bogus and concocted because as per the Panchnama, the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

Court Commissioner appointed by the Court concerned has specifically stated that at the time of starting the Panchnama at 9:20 a.m., only the applicant as well as complainant were present and the Court Commissioner started to draw the Panchnama in presence of complainant, applicant and two independent Panchas. Thus, in the said Panchnama, there is no mention about the availability of wife of the complainant as well as police personnel at the place of occurrence, as narrated by the complainant in his FIR. Thus, the entire story created by the complainant is an afterthought, bogus and concocted only with a view to harass the applicant who is in possession and occupation of the suit property since the year 2017. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submits that if this Hon'ble Court would go through the contents of the panchnama, in that event, it would be found out that on that day not a single piece of article of the complainant was found available at the property in question.

8. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submits that registration of the FIR in question wherein the applicant is sought to be implicated is nothing but a counterblast, as the applicant has filed civil suit against the complainant and one Iftekharbhai and just to create pressure upon the applicant, the impugned FIR has been lodged by the complainant. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submits that so far as allegations levelled against the applicants accused

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

under Section 504 and 506(2) are concerned, for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 504 IPC, the basic ingredients are required to be satisfied, which are (i) intentional insult, (ii) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (iii) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The following ingredients are required to be satisfied so as to invoke the provision of Section

506. (i) that the accused threatened some person,

(ii) that such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of some one in whom he was interested; and (iii) that he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat. The plain reading of the FIR clearly goes on to show that those basic and essential ingredients to constitute the charge against the applicant are not satisfied and they are missing from the body of the FIR. Learned advocate Mr. Shah submits that considering the above stated factual aspects of the matter, the FIR in question registered against the applicant is nothing but sheer abuse of process of Court and hence the same is required to be quashed. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submits that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

case of R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1960 SC 866 and in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, where the Court finds that the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused and/or where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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/her due to private and personal grudge, in that event, the Court should exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code by quashing the FIR/complaint. Therefore, the impugned FIR, which is nothing but sheer abuse of process of Court, is required to be quashed.

9. Learned APP Ms. Soaham Joshi has objected present application with vehemence and submitted that immediately after the registration of the FIR, applicant has approached this court and on 01.08.2019, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed an order, whereby, the investigating agency was directed not to file charge-sheet without the permission of the Court. Therefore, on the strength of the aforesaid order, the investigating officer concerned had carried out investigation and prepared panchnama of place of occurrence as well as recorded

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

the statement of number of persons and also verified all the relevant documents connected with the matter. Learned APP Mr. Joshi further submits that complainant has filed Special Civil Suit No.362 of 2012 before the competent Civil Court against one Iftekharbhai and said suit is dismissed by the Court solely on the count that the plaintiff has miserably failed to lead evidence to the effect that he is in possession and occupation of the suit property. During the course of investigation it is also found out that the said property (godown No.1) is transferred in the name of applicant on 12.02.2017 and since then he is in possession and occupation of the said property and possession of the said property was not taken by the applicant on 16.06.2019 from the custody of the complainant. He, therefore, fairly submits that so far as the allegations levelled against the applicant for offence punishable under Sections 452, 457, 380, etc. of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, they could not have been established from the documents collected by the investigating officer. However, from the statement of the complainant as well as his wife, it is found out that the present applicant accused had administered threat to the complainant and his wife and therefore offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC are prima facie made out. Learned APP Mr. Joshi further submits that as the I.O. is directed not to file charge-sheet before the concerned Court without permission of this Court, he has not filed any

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

charge-sheet against the accused so far as the offence punishable under Section 504 and 506(2) of the IPC is concerned. Learned APP Mr. Joshi submits that considering the aforesaid factual aspects, the FIR may not be quashed.

10. Though served, none appears for respondent No.2

- original complainant.

11. I have gone through the Record and Proceedings and also perused the material available on record. It is found out from the record that the so-called incident is occurred during the period between 8:00 p.m. on 15.06.2016 to 9:00 a.m. on 16.06.2016. It is also pertinent to note that applicant has filed a suit against the complainant and one Iftekharbhai in the year 2019, which is pending for adjudication, and at 9:20 a.m. on 16.06.2016 the Court Commissioner appointed by the said Court has drawn the panchnama of the property in question. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the entire story created by the complainant seems to be bogus and concocted one. The reason behind is that as per the case of the complainant, he has closed his godown at about 8:00 p.m. on 15.06.2019 and on the very next day morning i.e. 16.06.2019 at about 9:00 O'clock, when the complainant and his wife went to their godown, the entire incident took place and therefore the police immediately reached to the place of occurrence (at

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

the premises in question). However, if the contents of the Panchnama of premises in question drawn by the Court Commissioner is seen, in that event, it would be found out that the Court Commissioner has started the Panchnama at 9:20 a.m. on 16.06.2019, wherein, he has specifically stated that he started Panchnama in presence of complainant, applicant and two independent panchas. Thus, it is practically impossible to believe the story created by the complainant regarding occurrence of incident at the time mentioned in the FIR.

12. It is found out from the record that originally Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation has allotted the property in question (godown No.1) to one Mr. F. G. Waghbakriwala on 20.09.1991 on a lease of 99 years. Thereafter, as the applicant wish to purchase the said property, Mr. F. G. Waghbakriwala made an application to the GIDC and on making payment of amount by the applicant herein, GIDC had issued order whereby the property in question has been transferred in favour of the applicant on 09/10.02.2017 and since then applicant is in possession and occupation of the property in question. I have also perused the documents which shows that the possession and occupation of the suit property is with the the applicant since the year 2017.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

13. It is also found out from the record that applicant has also filed a suit against the complainant and one Iftekharbhai in the year 2019 and therefore it seems that as a counterblast, the complainant has lodged the FIR in question for the purpose of creating pressure upon the applicant.

14. It is also found out from the record that as per the case of the complainant, the original leaseholder Waghbakiwala sold the property in question to one Mr. Iftekharbhai and complainant had purchased the property in question from said Iftekharbhai by executing Agreement to Sell. It is also the case of the complainant that as the Iftekharbhai has not handed over the original papers of the property in question, he had instituted one suit against the said Iftekharbhai. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has tendered the judgment of that suit on record. The concerned Court has not believed the case of the complainant and suit came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 08.08.2019. As submitted by learned advocate Mr. Shah, the complainant has not challenged the said judgment before the higher forum.

15. Moreover, learned APP has also fairly submitted that so far as the offence under Sections 452, 457, 380, etc. of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, they could not have been established from the documents collected by the investigating officer

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

during the course of investigation. However, from the statement of the complainant as well as his wife, it is found out that the present applicant accused had administered threat to the complainant and his wife and therefore offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC are prima facie made out.

16. Now, I would like to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apxe Court in the case of Vikram Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in AIR 2019 Supreme Court 2109, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 504 IPC, the basic ingredients are required to be satisfied, which are

(i) intentional insult, (ii) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and

(iii) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The following ingredients are required to be satisfied so as to invoke the provisions of Section 506; (i) that the accused threatened some person, (ii) that such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of some one in whom he was interested; and (iii) that he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

execution of such threat.

A plain reading of the allegations in the FIR in question, in the opinion of this Court, does not satisfy all the aforesaid basic and essential ingredients so as to invoke the provisions of Section 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant.

17. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Dineshbhai @ Mukeshbhai Jitabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & another, vide judgment and order dated 05.04.2016 passed in Special Criminal Application No.4481 of 2014, observed and held as under:

"14 The second question that falls for my consideration is whether the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the I.P.C. could be said to have been made out.

15 Section 504 of the I.P.C. contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive language is used intentionally and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to commit an offence under the law, the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

case is not taken away from the purview of the section merely because the insulted person did not actually break the peace or commit any offence having exercised self control or having been subjected to abject terror by the offender. In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, I.P.C., the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, I.P.C. if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504, I.P.C. If he merely uses abusive language against the complainant. In King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:

To constitute an offence under Section 504, I.P.C. it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the other party to lose his temper and say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken by angry

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

words as well as deeds

In Guranditta v. Emperror, AIR 1930 Lah 344 (2): (32 Cri. LJ 62), it was observed that in dealing with a case under Section 504, I.P.C. the court should try to find out what in the ordinary circumstances would have been the effect of abusive language used. Pichai Pillai v. Ramaswamy Ayyangar (1941) 42 Cri. LJ 48) (Mad.) relied on by the learned Magistrate is no authority for any proposition that no offence is committed under Section 504, I.P.C. by the accused if he uses abusive language against the complainant. In that case there was a discussion between the accused Bill Collector and the complainant in regard to the amount due by the complainant towards tax collectable by the Bill Collector. In the course of that discussion, the Bill Collector shouted against the complainant saying shameless fellow, I will shoe you. The details of the discussion and the exact circumstances leading to the shouting by the accused are not available from the brief judgement reported. It is also not known as to where exactly the occurrence took place in that case. (vide Karumanchi Veerangaiah vs. Katta Mark & Ors., 1976 Cr. LJ 1690)

16 In the case of Ronak Ashok Kedia v. State of Gujarat [Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4145 of 2012 decided on 19th November, 2014], I have explained as to what would constitute the offence punishable under Section 506(2) of the I.P.C. I may quote the observations made in paras 10, 11 and 12 as under:

"10. The above takes me to consider whether any case is made out so far as the offence under Section 506(2) of the IPC is concerned.

Section 506 reads as under:

                 "S.     506.       Whoever       commits    the
                 offence     of      criminal       intimidation





                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




R/CR.MA/13164/2019                          ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

                                                                           undefined

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 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.

11. The essential ingredients The offence of criminal intimidation has been defined under Section 503 I.P.C and Section 506 I.P.C provides punishment for it.

Section 503 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 threats, commits criminal intimidation.

Explanation: A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the persons threatened is interested, is within this section.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

An offence under Section 503 has following essentials:

1. Threatening a person with any injury;

(i) to his person, reputation or property; or

(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.

2. The threat must be with intent;

(i) to cause alarm to that person; or

(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or

(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

12. A bare perusal of Section 506 IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that an accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant, but with a view to deterring him from interfering with the work of construction of the wall, which was undertaken by the accusedapplicant, would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. In the entire FIR, there is no whisper of any allegation that the threats which were administered actually caused any alarm to the first informant and he felt actually threatened."

18. Now, before dwelling into the issue involved in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

the matter, I would like to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2024) 4 Supreme 347, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed and held as under:

"20. It is now well settled that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself. It is also well settled that Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (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.

xxx xxx xxx

23. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can, and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction.

(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged.

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

fails to prove the charge."

19. It is well settled that where the Court finds that the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused and/or where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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/her due to private and personal grudge, in that event, the Court should exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code by quashing the FIR/complaint. Here in the instant case, from the bare reading of the contents of the FIR in question, it transpires that no offence much less the offence under Sections 504 and 506(2) are made out against the applicant accused. Thus, from bare perusal of the FIR itself, none of the ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are spelt out.

20. For the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to allow this application and the same is accordingly allowed. The FIR being C.R.No.I-106 of 2019 registered with Pandesara Police Station, Surat for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 457, 380, 342, 427, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/13164/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/06/2024

undefined

Penal Code is hereby quashed.

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) LAVKUMAR J JANI