Vinubhai Maganbhai Bariya vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 2215 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Vinubhai Maganbhai Bariya vs State Of Gujarat on 30 January, 2025

                                                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




                            R/SCR.A/368/2020                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                            R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO.                           368 of
                                                     2020


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

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

                                 Approved for Reporting                        Yes             No

                       ==========================================================
                                               VINUBHAI MAGANBHAI BARIYA & ORS.
                                                             Versus
                                                    STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                       MR SANDIP M PATEL(5649) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                       ==========================================================

                            CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

                                                          Date : 30/01/2025

                                                            ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of present petition, the petitioners seek to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR being C.R.No.11207048200020 of 2020 registered with Morva Police Station, District Panchmahal as well as consequential proceedings initiated pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid FIR against the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/368/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

petitioners.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. P. P. Majmudar for the petitioners, learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi for respondent No.1 - State and learned advocate Mr. Sandip M. Patel for respondent No.2 - original complainant.

3. The case of the prosecution can be summarized in nutshell as under:

3.1. The respondent No.2 - original complainant has filed FIR against the petitioners on 06.01.2020, inter alia, alleging that on 04.01.2020, at around 11:30 a.m. her husband and son had gone to the Bank and thereafter at around 12:00 p.m., complainant had gone to her agricultural field where she saw that someone has cut grasses from her agricultural field and therefore she went to the house of one Somabhai Mulabhai Bariya for making inquiry about the same. As per the case of the complainant, at that time, one Shantaben Somabhai Bariya was present. She made inquiry from her and at that time Shantaben told her that by mistake she had cut the grass from their field. The complainant told her not to cut grass without her permission and by saying that she left the house of the accused and at that time she was murmuring that, 'without taking her permission why she has cut the grass from her field'. At that relevant point of time, the accused No.1 overheard

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/368/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

her voice and asked the complainant to whom she is scolding and whether she is scolding original accused No.1 because of the dispute related to Anganwadi and by saying so the accused No.1 got angry and started fighting with the complainant and abused her with filthy language and beat her with the wooden stick on her right hand. Thereafter, original accused Nos. 2 and 3 also came there with wooden sticks in their hands and they also beaten the complainant.

Thereafter, accused No.4 also came with sickle in her hand and when she tried to hit the complainant, it got hit on the saree of the complainant. It is also alleged that thereafter all the accused persons used caustic words and abused the complainant in the name of her caste and threatened her. Therefore, FIR is filed against all the accused persons.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar appearing for the petitioners submits that immediately after the registration of the FIR, petitioners have approached before this Court and considering the averments made in the memo of the petition as well as the allegations and accusations levelled against the petitioners, this Court has passed an order directing the investigating officer to carry out the investigation but no charge-sheet shall be filed against the accused persons without prior permission of this Court. Therefore, up till now charge-sheet has not been filed. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar further submits that in fact this is a clear cut case

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/368/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

of misuse of provisions of the law. He submits that in fact petitioner No.4 - Madhuben had been appointed as Anganwadi Karyakar on 21.08.2014 by the Child Development Project Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Morva. He further submits that the daughter-in-law of the complainant was working as a Tedagar in the Anganwadi office where the petitioner No.4 was appointed as Anganwadi Karyakar and on 20.12.2018, a representation has been made by petitioner No.4 addressing to the Collector, specifically stating that daughter-in-law of the complainant was working as Tedagar and she had misbehaved and tried to interrupt petitioner No.4 in discharging her duty and also threatened her to file criminal complaint under the SCST Act against the petitioner No.4 and her family members. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar further submits that on 28.03.2019 also, one another representation was made by petitioner No.4 to the Child Development Project Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Morva by narrating the said facts that on regular intervals threat was administered by the daughter-in- law of the complainant to file criminal complaint against petitioner No.4 and her family members under the SCST Act. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar further submits that it is found out from the averments made in the body of the FIR that the so-called incident is occurred on 04.01.2020 and FIR is filed on 06.01.2020, therefore, there is delay in registering the FIR. He further submits that for the sake of argument and without admitting it, if the allegations

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/368/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

and accusations levelled against the petitioners are to be treated and considered to be true, in th t event also no offence under the provisions f the SCST Act can be said to have been made out ag inst the petitioners. He further submits that from t e content of the FIR, it clearly goes on to show tha there was some verbal altercations took place betwe n the parties for cutting the grass. Except that no any incident is occurred and accused persons hav not used any abusive and filthy language and/or cast ist slurs against the complainant. He further sub its that bare perusal of the FIR clearly goes on to how that with a sole intent to harass the petitioners by adopting arm twisting tactics, a false and frivolo s FIR is filed against the petitioners which ultim tely amounts to gross abuse of process of law. Learne advocate Mr. Majmudar has put reliance upon the de ision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hit sh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another, re orted in (2020) 10 SCC 710 and submitted that the ba ic and essential ingredients to attract the provisi ns of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) are that the in ident of intentional insult or intimidates with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled C ste or a Scheduled Tribe and abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name ust be in any place within public view. Here in the instant case, the said basic and essential i gredients are missing.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/368/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

5. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar further submits that so far as allegations levelled against the petitioners under Sections 504 and 506 are concerned, for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 504 IPC, the basic, essential and requisite ingredients which are required to be satisfied 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 petitioners for the offence of 504 and 506(2) IPC are not satisfied and they are missing from the body of the FIR. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar further submits that considering the above stated factual aspects of the matter, the FIR in question registered against the petitioners is

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/368/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

nothing but sheer abuse of process of law and hence the same is required to be quashed. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar further submits that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the 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.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Sandip Patel for the respondent No.2 - original complainant has objected the present petition with vehemence and submitted that involvement of the petitioners in the commission of crime is clearly spelt out from the body of the FIR. He further submits that immediately after the registration of the FIR, the petitioners approached

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/368/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

before this Court by way of preferring present petition and the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the investigating officer not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners. Therefore, further investigation could not have been carried out by the investigating officer. He further submits that if the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the allegations levelled against the petitioners accused, in that event, the basic ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners are clearly spelt out. Therefore, the FIR as well as further consequential proceedings based upon the said FIR may not be quashed.

7. Learned APP Mr. Soaham Joshi has also objected present petition with vehemence and submitted that he is adopting the arguments canvassed by learned advocate Mr. Patel for the respondent No.2 - original complainant. He, therefore, submits that considering the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the FIR and the gravity of offence, this Court may not quash the FIR at this stage.

8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it is found out that respondent No.2 - original complainant has filed impugned FIR against the petitioners. I have also perused the FIR in question. It is found out that complainant has stated in her complaint that petitioners have beaten

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/368/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

her and used casteist slurs against her but it is required to be noted that in the complaint itself the complainant has stated that she has not taken treatment. Moreover, from the FIR, it appears that merely general, vague and sweeping allegations have been made against the petitioners without bringing on record any specific instances of casteist slurs used by the petitioners. It is also pertinent to note that petitioner No.4 was appointed as Anganwadi Karyakar on 21.08.2014 by the Child Development Project Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Morva where the daughter- in-law of the complainant was working as a Tedagar. It is also found from the record that on 20.12.2018, a representation has been made by petitioner No.4 addressing to the Collector by specifically stating that daughter-in-law of the complainant was working as Tedagar and she had misbehaved and tried to interrupt petitioner No.4 in discharging her duty and also threatened her to file criminal complaint under the SCST Act against the petitioner No.4 and her family members. On 28.03.2019 also, one another representation was made by petitioner No.4 to the Child Development Project Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Morva by narrating the said facts that on regular intervals threat was administered by the daughter-in- law of the complainant to file criminal complaint against petitioner No.4 and her family members under the SCST Act. Thus, prima facie, the instant complaint seems to be a counterblast and filed with an intent to harass the petitioners and especially

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/368/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

petitioner No.4.

9. Before dwelling into the issue involved in the matter, I would like to refer to the decision of the 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/368/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

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 fails to prove the charge."

10. Thus, the inherent powers can be exercised when the Court finds that the allegations levelled in the first information report or complaint do not constitute the offence as alleged. Here in the case on hand, as observed above merely general, vague and sweeping allegations have been made against the petitioners without bringing on record any specific instance. Moreover, the act is not witnessed by any independent and/or neutral witness.

11. At this juncture, 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/368/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

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. On a plain reading of the allegation 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 of the IPC.

12. Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, provide as under:

"3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste ora Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;"

13. Section 3(2)(va) of the Act provides as under:

"3(2)(va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/368/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;"

14. Insofar as invocation of provisions of Atrocity Act is concerned, in this context, I would like to refer to and rely upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 469, which are as follows;

"14. We have heard the parties and perused the judgment and order of the High Court together with the materials on record.

15. Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, prior to its amendment notified vide S.O. 152(E) dated 18th January, 2016, read as follows:

"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.

-- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, --

***

(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

*****

16. The first F.I.R., registered at the instance of the complainant, is silent about the place of occurrence and who, being a member of the public, was present when the appellant is alleged to have hurled caste related abuses at the complainant. However, on a reading of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/368/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

second F.I.R. registered at the behest of the appellant, it appears that the incident took place at the house of the appellant.

17. The first question that calls for an answer is whether it was at a place within public view that the appellant hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with an intent to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate him. From the charge-sheet dated 21st January, 2016 filed by the I.O., it appears that the prosecution would seek to rely on the evidence of three witnesses to drive home the charge against the appellant of committing offences under sections 323 and 504, IPC and 3(1)(x), SC/ST Act. These three witnesses are none other than the complainant, his wife and their son. Neither the first F.I.R. nor the charge-sheet refers to the presence of a fifth individual (a member of the public) at the place of occurrence (apart from the appellant, the complainant, his wife and their son). Since the utterances, if any, made by the appellant were not "in any place within public view", the basic ingredient for attracting section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was missing/absent. We, therefore, hold that at the relevant point of time of the incident (of hurling of caste related abuse at the complainant by the appellant), no member of the public was present.

18. That apart, assuming arguendo that the appellant had hurled caste related abuses at the complainant with a view to insult or humiliate him, the same does not advance the case of the complainant any further to bring it within the ambit of section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. We have noted from the first F.I.R. as well as the charge-sheet that the same makes no reference to the utterances of the appellant during the course of verbal altercation or to the caste to which the complainant belonged, except for the allegation/observation that caste-related abuses

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/368/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

were hurled. The legislative intent seems to be clear that every insult or intimidation for humiliation to a person would not amount to an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless, of course, such insult or intimidation is targeted at the victim because of he being a member of a particular Scheduled Caste or Tribe. If one calls another an idiot (bewaqoof) or a fool (murkh) or a thief (chor) in any place within public view, this would obviously constitute an act intended to insult or humiliate by user of abusive or offensive language. Even if the same be directed generally to a person, who happens to be a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, per se, it may not be sufficient to attract section 3(1)(x) unless such words are laced with casteist remarks. Since section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars invocation of the court's jurisdiction under section 438, Cr.PC and having regard to the overriding effect of the SC/ST Act over other laws, it is desirable that before an accused is subjected to a trial for alleged commission of offence under section 3(1)(x), the utterances made by him in any place within public view are outlined, if not in the F.I.R. (which is not required to be an encyclopaedia of all facts and events), but at least in the charge-sheet (which is prepared based either on statements of witnesses recorded in course of investigation or otherwise) so as to enable the court to ascertain whether the charge sheet makes out a case of an offence under the SC/ST Act having been committed for forming a proper opinion in the conspectus of the situation before it, prior to taking cognisance of the offence. Even for the limited test that has to be applied in a case of the present nature, the charge-sheet dated 21st January, 2016 does not make out any case of an offence having been committed by the appellant under section 3(1)(x) warranting him to stand a trial.

19. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the decision in

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/SCR.A/368/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2025

undefined

Hitesh Verma (supra) cited by Ms. Shukla can be pressed in aid to support the view that we have taken above."

15. In view of the ratio enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, I am of the opinion that the basic and requisite ingredients for invoking the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not at all satisfied.

16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations, the petition is allowed. The FIR being C.R.No.11207048200020 of 2020 registered with Morva Police Station, District Panchmahal as well as consequential proceedings initiated pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid FIR are hereby quashed qua the petitioners. Rule is made absolute.

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) LAVKUMAR J JANI