Vijay Harshadray Shah vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 1011 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Vijay Harshadray Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 18 July, 2025

                                                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.MA/6011/2018                                  ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025

                                                                                                               undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                             R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                                           FIR/ORDER) NO. 6011 of 2018

                       ==========================================================
                                                      VIJAY HARSHADRAY SHAH
                                                               Versus
                                                      STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS MEGHA JANI(1028) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
                       MR JAY MEHTA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No.
                       1
                       RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                       ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                                                           Date : 18/07/2025

                                                            ORAL ORDER

1. Though served, none appears for the respondent No.2.

2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.II - 13 of 2018 registered with Halol Rural Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 of the IPC, u/s 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short "the Act") as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.

3. Seeking quashment of the impugned FIR, learned advocate for the petitioner while separating each offence in background of

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/6011/2018 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025

undefined

reading the FIR would submit that the complainant did not remain present on his service through Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd, however, upon service, the complainant remained present. She would further submit that taking the FIR on its face value, it does not specify that which derogatory words are spoken by the petitioner to lower down the caste of the complainant. She would further submit that even otherwise, the allegations levelled in the FIR indicate that whole episode took place within the chamber of the petitioner and does not attract phrase "within the public view" and therefore, offences under the Atrocities Act are not attracted. She would further submit that as far as offence u/s 504 of the IPC is concerned, there is no intentional insult and even the words are not said to have been spoken by the petitioner. She would further submit that no specific abusive language is noticeable from the FIR and it does not therefore attract criminal intimidation. She would further submit that as far as offence u/s 323 of the IPC is concerned, except allegation that two slaps were given on the cheek of the complainant, no other allegations are levelled and further, it does not reveal that the complainant has taken any treatment for two slaps given on his cheek.

3.1 To buttress her submission, learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Mohd. Wajid and another Vs. State of UP and others, (2023) 20 SCC 219, Karuppudayar Vs. State Rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2025 SCC online 215 and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Virambhai Punjabhai Mer Vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Criminal Misc. Application No.7349 of 2019.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/6011/2018 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025

undefined

3.2 Upon such submission, Learned advocate for the petitioner prays to allow this petition.

4. Per contra, learned APP though argued, however, could not point out even application of offence u/s 323 of the IPC.

5. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

6. The investigating papers or material collected during the investigation, more particularly, in form of statements of Mr. Satyendra Rana and Mr. Pushpendra Thakor, who are claimed to be eye witness indicates that except some scolding at the behest of the petitioner, no other episode has happened. The statements of these two witnesses falsify the theory of the complainant that he has been slapped on his cheek. Moreover, during the investigation, no medical papers are obtained, which indicate that the complainant has taken any treatment. Even, it is not the case of the complainant that he went to some Hospital for taking treatment. It is in these circumstances the offence u/s 323 of the IPC fails to attract. As far as offence u/s 504 of the IPC is concerned, there is no intentional insult, abusive language forming part of the FIR and therefore, criminal intimidation does not attract.

7. As far as offence under the Atrocities Act are concerned, it is noticeable that the whole episode took place within the office of the petitioner in presence of two persons i.e. the complainant and the petitioner. Therefore, phrase "within the public view"

does not attract. Moreover, even going by the FIR does not

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/6011/2018 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025

undefined

indicate that what words were spoken by the petitioner, which derogates the complainant on his case.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Georige Pentaiah v/s. State of Andra Pradesh [2008 (12) SCC 531], held that complainant ought to alleged that accused are not member of SC /ST caste and he was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in place within public view. It is submitted that basic ingredients are missing in the FIR, then permitting such complaint to continue and to compel the accused to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.

9. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Apex Court summed up the proposition of law, which reads as under:-

"(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 ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the code.

(3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case against the accused.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/6011/2018 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025

undefined

(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.

(5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. 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 bare engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the institution 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 malafide 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."

9.1 The findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 1,3 and 7 are attracted in the present case. In view of above, present petition deserves consideration.

10. This Court is quite conscious that power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is extraordinary power and should be used sparingly, as the exercise of such power would scuttle the FIR at the threshold. But, if the FIR fails to make out essential ingredients of the offence, power should be exercised.

11. Resultantly, this application is allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R.No.II - 13 of 2018 registered with Halol Rural Police

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.MA/6011/2018 ORDER DATED: 18/07/2025

undefined

Station filed against the present petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. Direct service is permitted.

12. The State, if so thinks fit, would be at liberty to recover the amount of compensation, if any, granted to the complainant.

(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE