Gujarat High Court
Dr. Dushyant Shantilal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 25 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13330/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 13330 of 2018
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 17270 of 2018
==========================================================
DR. DUSHYANT SHANTILAL PATEL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS M BAROT SENIOR ADVOCATE (2964) for the Applicants No. 1,2
MR SUDHIR M MEHTA(2058) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS SHAILEE S MEHTA(5873) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MANAN MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 25/04/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
Insofar as the Criminal Misc. Application No.17270 of 2018 is
concerned, wherein learned advocate for the petitioner Mr.Sudhir Mehta
places on record the copy of judgment and order rendered by the learned
trial Court in CC No.8787 of 2018 acquitting the petitioner of CR.MA
No.17270 of 2018 from the charges levelled against him. Accordingly,
the CR.MA No.17270 of 2018 is disposed of as having become
infructuous.
2. CR.MA No.13330 of 2018 is filed by the petitioners seeking to
quash the FIR being II-38 of 2018 registered with the Gujarat University
Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 506(2), 504,
294(b) and 114 of the IPC under the provisions of Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Barot appearing for the petitioners
would submit that out of the accident took place where some altercations
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13330/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
were made between the parties and cross-complaint came to be filed by
both the sides. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Barot invited attention of this
Court to the fact of acquitting the respondent no.2 herein by the trial
Court in the complaint filed by the petitioner herein and therefore he
would submit that present application may be allowed by quashing and
setting aside the FIR filed against the petitioner herein.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Sudhir Mehta appearing for the org.
complainant would submit to pass necessary order in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
5. Learned APP Mr.Mehta for the respondent - State would also
submit to pass necessary order in the facts of the case.
6. Having heard the learned advocate for the respective parties, it is
noticeable that out of the common accident cross complaint came to be
registered by the parties against each other and out of which in one of the
FIR, the learned trial Court has acquitted the charges levelled against the
accused therein believing the happening of the incident doubtful. Prima
facie, reading of the FIR in question does not disclose any offence as
alleged in the FIR. It could be noticed that offence under Sections 504
and 506(2) of the IPC is alleged; however none of the averments made in
the FIR attracts the said provision whereby intentional insult to give
provocation to person insulted and the criminal intimidation is prima
facie proved. To be noted further that when in one of the FIR registered
out of the same incident, the learned trial Court after appreciating the
evidence has recorded the acquittal of the accused.
7. At this juncture, I may refer to the relevant observations made by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13330/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
[1992 Supp (1) SCC 335].
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories
of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) Where 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13330/2018 ORDER DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) 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 due to private and personal grudge."
8. For the foregoing reasons, CR.MA No.13330 of 2018 is allowed.
FIR being II-38 of 2018 registered with the Gujarat University Police
Station as well as consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance
thereof qua present petitioner is quashed and set aside. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
sompura
