Gujarat High Court
Velabhai Kesabhai Gohil(Rajput) vs State Of Gujarat on 17 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21192/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 21192 of 2019
==========================================================
VELABHAI KESABHAI GOHIL(RAJPUT) & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHITH P ACHARYA(9308) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR MANAN MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
REFUSED SERVED (N)(10) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 17/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed to quash
and set aside FIR being I-C.R.No.67 of 2019 registered with
Rapar Police Station, Kachchh East - Gandhidham for the
offence under sections 447, 114 of IPC read with section 3(1)(f),
3(1)(g) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Facts of the case are as under :-
2.1. That the lands that were declared excess under the Ceiling
Act were allotted to one Rapar Taluka Anusuchit Jaati
Samudayik Kheti Sahkari Mandali Ltd. It is further alleged that
the said Mandali was handed over the possession of these lands
and the Mandali thereafter had handed over the possession of
these lands to its members for cultivation. It is further alleged
that the complainant and one Kesarben Hemrajbhai Rathod
being the members of the said Mandali were allotted the land
being survey no. 1327 admeasuring 1-34-56 and the land
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21192/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
bearing survey number 1406/2 admeasuring 1-51-76
respectively to collect the crop of Rammol. It is further alleged
that the said land was allotted to Pachanbhai Bhadru who is the
President of the Mandali on 15.06.2018 by the revenue authority
and thereafter the same was allotted to its members i.e. the
present complainant and Kesarben on 01.06.2019 by the
Mandali. It is alleged that the physical possession of the land
allotted to the present complainant was with Velabhai Kesabhai
Gohil (Rajput) i.e. the accused no. 1 and that of the land allotted
to Kesarben was with Bharat Jemalbhai Parmar (Rajput) and
Jemalbhai Parmar (Rajput) i.e. the accused no. 2 and 3 herein. It
is further alleged that since there were standing crops of Jiru at
that time, it was decided between the old possession holders and
the President of the Mandali that the possession will be vacated
after collecting the harvest which was not vacated by these old
possession holders and the accused no. 1 had thereafter sown
the til crop in the said land and the accused no. 2 and 3 in the
land allotted to Kesarben had sown the crop of Jowar in the said
land and upon repeated requests from the complainant, the
accused no. 1 had informed the complainant that he had
obtained a stay from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and therefore
he will not vacate the land. It is alleged that on 23.10.2019 at
around 2 p.m. when the present complainant along with
Kesarben went to visit the land allotted to them, they found that
the crop of til cultivated in the land of the present complainant
has been harvested and the land has been ploughed, the present
complainant upon inquiry from the adjacent land came to know
that the accused no. 1 had harvested the crop before about 10
days and has ploughed the field before a day. It is further alleged
that thereafter, the present complainant along with Kesarben
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21192/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
went to visit the land allotted to Kesarben, it was found that the
crop of Jowar was disturbed, thereafter upon inquiry from the
adjacent land it was known that the accused no. 2 and 3 were
grazing the cattle yesterday. It is further alleged that the
documents of allotting the land to the present complainant and
Kesarben were produced by him and the accused no. 1 had
taken away the crop of til to the tune of 400 to 500 kg from the
land of the present complainant and the said incident has
occurred in about last 4 months It is further alleged that the
said land were allotted to the Mandall by the revenue authority
and the same were further allotted to the members of the
Mandall for cultivation, and the accused herein having
knowledge of the same had entered the said land and had not
vacated the possession of the land and accused no. 1 had
harvested the crop of til from the land allotted to the present
complainant and accused no. 2 and 3 had disturbed the crop of
jowar from the land of Kesarben and hence FIR has been filed.
3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Acharya for the
petitioners does not press present petition qua offence under
sections 447, 114 of IPC and continue present petition in regard
to offence under sections 3(2)(5)(a) and 3(1)(r)(s) of the Atrocities
Act.
4. Though respondent no.2 is served, but none remain
present.
5. As far as petition qua the offences punishable under the
Atrocities Act are concerned, learned advocate for the petitioners
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21192/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
would submit that there is not a single word in the entire FIR
which could attract offence punishable under the provisions of
the Atrocities Act. He would further submit that looking to the
contents of the FIR, putting a person on trial for the offence
under the Atrocities Act would be an abuse of process of law.
4.1. Upon above submissions, he would submit to allow this
petition by quashing the FIR for the offences under the Atrocities
Act qua the petitioners.
5. Learned APP for the respondent State on plain reading of
FIR, prima facie case under the Atrocities Act is made out
against the present petitioners. Therefore, he submits to dismiss
this petition.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and perused the FIR. To establish the offence under Section 3(2)
(va) of the Atrocities Act, the first informant prima facie requires
to plead intentional insult or intimidation with intent to
humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in
any place within the public view and to abuse a member of
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by caste naming within
public view. Section 3(2)(va) demands that the accused knowing
that the first informant or victims are members of Scheduled
Caster or Scheduled Tribe and yet they have been humiliated in
that aspect. Bare reading of the contents of FIR fails to establish
ingredients of offence under the Atrocities Act. Even the FIR
misses the word that the accused belongs to general caste and
first informant or victims belong to Scheduled Caster or
Scheduled Tribe and yet accused knowing that aspect insulted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/21192/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
and humiliated or lowered the first informant/victim on the
caste. While taking the assistance of judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors. - (2008) 12 SCC 531 and in case of
Asmathunnisa Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh - AIR 2011 SC 1905
and referring to recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Karuppudayar vs. State Rep. By Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Lalgudi Trichy and others - 2025 SCC Online SC 215
and perusing the aforesaid aspects vis-a-vis FIR, I am of the
opinion that putting accused for trial for the offence under the
Atrocities Act, would be abuse of process of law.
7. Therefore, while confining my reasons for quashing the
offence under the provisions of the Atrocities Act, I pass the
following order :
7.1 In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR so
far as offences under the Atrocities Act as well as all
consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are
hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioners herein. Rule is
made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
7.2 It is needless to state that quashing of FIR insofar as
offence under the Atrocities Act qua the petitioners would not
come in way for the trial of the other offences under IPC. Trial of
offence under IPC is expedited.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
