Gujarat High Court
Chhatrajitbhai Ramkubhai Dhakhda vs State Of Gujarat on 20 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19001/2018 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 19001 of 2018
==========================================================
CHHATRAJITBHAI RAMKUBHAI DHAKHDA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 20/02/2025
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.98 of 2018 registered with
Rajula Police Station for the offence under sections 504, 506(2),
120(B) of IPC read with section 3(2), 5(a), 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Darshit Kamdar for the
petitioners does not press present petition qua offence under
sections 504, 506(2) read with section 120(B) 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. Facts of the case are as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19001/2018 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
4.1 t is stated in the FIR filed by the respondent no.2 that he
resides with his family and doing social services. He has 2 sons
and one daughter. His wife Kantaben who is Executive Chairman
in Rajula Nagar Palika. It is stated that at present work of
construction of road from Agariya Jakat Haka to Grave Yard was
in progress but at present stopped. It is stated that in pursuance
to the application given by his wife Kantaben before Rajula
Municipality, on 1-10-2018, it is stated by the complainant that
since the work of construction of road was in progress, with
whom contractor one and sub-contractor Chhatrajit partnership,
they were asked work property. as because made to do the of
this Chhatrajit felt bad. It is stated that on 29-9-2018 at about
3.30, Vice President of Rajula Nagar Palika, Chhatrajit and his
father Ramkubhai, made a call to the complainant that informed
that on 30-9-2018 at Tulsi Shyam, Religious Ceremony (Thad)
was organized and all the members of the Nagar Palika re also
going there. The complainant was also invited along with others
to have the discussion during the night and accordingly at about
5.30 the complainant persons on went along with other different
vehicles. It in stated that near village Thordi, Ramkubhai has
also filled up petrol and at about # O'clock when they reached at
the gate of Tulsi Shyam, Chhatrajitbhai, his father Ramkubhai
and one Yunusbhai all 3 were standing there. Thereafter all have
taken blessings, Arti was also made and then all have taken
dinner together. It is stated that after dinner, all went to the
room situated on the back-side. At that time one Rameshbhai,
Vinubhai, Chhatrajitbhal, Ramkubhai, Yunushbhai and other
persona were there. It is stated that all were sitting in the room
and making discussion about the work of construction of road. It
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19001/2018 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
is stated that Ramkubhai and his Chhatrajitbhai used abusive
words son and given threat and suddenly the Yunusbhai made
an action as if he has knife in his hand. As others have asked
not to do so, the Chhatrajitbhai got excited and used abusive
words against the community of the complainant and after that
the complainant and other persons went in different rooms. In
the early morning the complainant left and came to Una. It is
stated that the complainant has informed about this incident to
his wife, who has sent an application with these allegations and
FIR came to be filed.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that on
plain reading of FIR, it does not disclose any offence alleged to
have been committed by the petitioners under Atrocities Act. It is
submitted that perusing the allegations levelled in the FIR
against the petitioners, commission of offence under provisions
of Atrocities Act is not made out and therefore, it is submitted
that complaint qua said offence is required to be quashed and
set aside.
6. Learned APP submitted that considering the facts of the
case, offence under Atrocities Act is made out and therefore,
submitted to dismiss the petitions.
7. Perusing the FIR, what could be noticed that entire episode
has taken place within four corners of one room and it cannot be
termed as any place within public view. Recently, Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Karuppudayar v/s. State Rep. by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy [2025 SCC
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19001/2018 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
OnLine SC 215] examined term "any place within public view"
and reviewing earlier judgment in the case of [Swaran Singh v.
State, (2008) 8 SCC 435], in para 10 and 11 held as under :-
"10. The term "any place within public view" initially came
up for consideration before this Court in the case of
Swaran Singh v. State through Standing Counsel. This
Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand3
referred to Swaran Singh (supra) and reiterated the legal
position as under:
"14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or
intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to
be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for
consideration before this Court in the judgment reported
as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8
SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]. The Court had drawn
distinction between the expression "public place" and "in
any place within public view". It was held that if an offence
is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a
house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the
road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn
would certainly be a place within the public view. On the
contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not merely relatives or
friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in
the public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be
contrary to what is stated below in the extract from
Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the
application of this principle in para 15, below:"Also, even if
the remark is made inside a building, but some members
of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then
also it would be an offence since it is in the public view."].
The Court held as under :
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the
first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by
calling him a "chamar") when he stood near the car which
was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this
was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a
house is certainly a place within public view. It could have
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19001/2018 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
been a different matter had the alleged offence been
committed inside a building, and also was not in the public
view. However, if the offence is committed outside the
building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can
be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the
boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within
the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public are there (not
merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence
since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not
confuse the expression "place within public view" with the
expression "public place". A place can be a private place
but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public
place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or
leased by the Government or the municipality (or other
local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the
State, and not by private persons or private bodies."
(emphasis in original)"
11. It could thus be seen that, to be a place 'within public
view', the place should be open where the members of the
public can witness or hear the utterance made by the
accused to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place
within the four corners of the wall where members of the
public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has
taken place at a place within public view.
8. If we take averments alleged in the FIR on its face value, it
reveals that there is allegation that when complainant was in
room belonging to accused, some ruckus took place between the
parties and within four corners of room, some filthy language
was spoken against the complainant. It is clear from the FIR
that incident occurred within four corners of the room of
accused. Therefore, this Court is of the view that incident has
not taken at place which can be termed as public view. The
offence under section Atrocities Act, more particularly, sections
3(2)(5)(a) and 3(1)(r)(s) of the Atrocities Act is not attracted.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19001/2018 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
9. This Court may gainfully refer to the following observations
of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992
Suppl (1) SCC 335], and the law laid down therein has been
consistently followed. In para 102, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
as under :-
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19001/2018 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
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 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."
10. No doubt, that the power under Section 482 of the CrPC is
required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and
that too in the rarest of rare cases. It is equally settled that the
court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint. However, the court would be
justified in exercising its discretion if the case falls under any of
the clauses carved out by this Court in Paragraph 102 in the
case of Bhajan Lal (supra).
11. In view of above, since this Court has observed that the
allegations made in the FIR, even if they are taken at their face
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19001/2018 ORDER DATED: 20/02/2025
undefined
value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie
constitute an offence either under Section 3(1)(r) or under
Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act. The case would fall under the
first category of para 102 in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra).
12. In view of above, present petition deserves consideration. I
pass following order :-
(a) The petition is partly allowed.
(b) FIR being I-C.R.No.98 of 2018 registered with Rajula
Police Station for the offence under section section 3(2),
5(a), 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is quashed and set aside qua
the petitioners. Offence against the petitioners under
Indian Penal Code would be put to trial. Needless to state
that learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by
observation made herein above while conducting trial
under IPC offence against the petitioners.
(c) It would be open for the prosecution, if so advised to
recover the amount of compensation from first informant.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
