Gujarat High Court
Vasim Iqbalbhai Khilji vs State Of Gujarat on 3 July, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3928/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 3928 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Sd./-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
VASIM IQBALBHAI KHILJI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR BHAVIK R SAMANI(8339) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR RONAK RAVAL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 03/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for the
Respondent-State and learned Advocate, Mr. Samani,
waives for Respondent No.2-complainant.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to
quash and set aside the impugned FIR, being CR No.
11202008220205 of 2022, registered with 'A' Division Police
Station, Jamnagar, under Sections 435, 504 and 506(2) of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(iii)
and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3928/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('Atrocities Act' in brief)
and all other consequential proceedings arising, there from.
2. Respondent No.2-complainant, namely Lakhmanbhai
Naranbhai Vaghela, lodged a complaint on 26.01.2022 with
'A' Division Police Station, Jamnagar, wherein, he has
stated that on 25.11.2021, he along with his family
members had dinner and went to sleep at about 11:30 p.m.
and at that time, his motorcycle, bearing registration No.
GJ-10-CD-3810, was parked outside his house. It is,
further, stated in the FIR that in the night at about 02:30
a.m., Respondent No.2 felt that something was burning
outside his house and therefore, he woke-up his family
members and when they went outside, they found that their
motorcycle was burning and one Vasim Khilji, i.e. the
present petitioner, and another unknown persons were
standing there. It is, further, alleged that thereafter, the
present petitioner and the unknown person accompanying
him uttered caste based slurs and also threatened him of
dire consequences, if, Respondent No.2 filed any complaint
against them.
2.1 Respondent No.2 in the FIR has stated that the reason
for the aforesaid incident was that on the last Diwali, the
motorcycle of the brother-in-law of the present petitioner
had caught fire due to some unknown reasons and the
petitioner suspected that the son of Respondent No.2 had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3928/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
done the same and therefore, by keeping the grudge about
the said incident, the petitioner had set the motorcycle of
Respondent No.2 on fire.
Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned Advocate, Mr. Rachh, appearing for the
petitioner made the following submissions;
(i) The impugned FIR is completely concocted
one and it is based on imagination of Respondent
No.2, since, the alleged incident took place on the
late night of 25.11.2021, whereas, the impugned
FIR for the same came to be filed only on
26.01.2022, i.e. after the delay of about two
months, which cannot be believed;
(ii) It was, further, submitted that before the
filing of the impugned FIR, i.e. on the very next
day of the date of incident, i.e. on 25.11.2021
Respondent No.2 had given an intimation
application to Police Inspector, City 'A' Division
Police Station, Jamnagar, as well as a complaint
to DSP, Jamnagar, wherein, he had stated that
he has a doubt that one Ayan Rafikbhai Patani
and another unknown person had set his
motorcycle on fire. However, pursuant thereto,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3928/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
when the statement of Respondent no.2 was
recorded by the PI, city 'A' division police station,
Jamnagar, on 04.12.2021, he, in no unclear
terms, stated that he does not know, as to who
had set his motorcycle on fire. Further, at one
point of time, Respondent No.2, though, had
stated that he has a doubt that the same could
have been done by one Ayan Rafikbhai, while
giving his statement on 04.12.2021, he clearly
stated that he cannot say anything with certainty
as to who had set his motorcycle on FIR, as he,
i.e. Respondent No.2, and his family members
had not seen Ayan at the place of incident. In
fact, Respondent No.2 had stated that he does not
want to file any police complaint with regard to
the same. Moreover, there were no allegations
made by Respondent No.2 that anybody had
uttered caste based slurs against him and his
family members in the said intimation given to
police with regard to which a closure report was
also filed by the police subsequently, however, he
had alleged in the complaint given to DSP that
Ayan Rafikbhai had uttered caste based slurs,,
but, there was neither name of the present
petitioner was mentioned in the said complaint
nor was there any allegation made against him
and that would also belie the version given by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3928/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
Respondent No.2 in the impugned FIR dated
26.01.2022, since, in the intimation application
given to Police Inspector as well as in the
complaint made to DSP, Jamnagar, the petitioner
had mentioned the name of one Ayan Rafikbhai
and the name of the present petitioner was not
stated anywhere ;
(iii) It was also submitted that after the closure
report filed by the police, after recording
statement of Respondent No.2 on 04.12.2021,
with regard to his intimation application dated
26.11.2021, the petitioner did not do anything for
about one month and thereafter, he filed the
impugned FIR against the present petitioner for
the offences as noted in Paragraph-1 herein above
with a view to wreak vengeance against him for
some past dispute;
(iv) It was, further, submitted that apart from the
aforesaid contradictions in the stand taken by
Respondent No.2, even if, the case of Respondent
No.2 is examined on merits, then also, there is
not only delay of about two months in filing the
impugned FIR but also there is aspect of 'Public
View', so far as the utterances of caste based
slurs to Respondent No.2 is concerned and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3928/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
thereby, it was submitted that no offence is made
out under the provision of the Atrocities Act. It
was also submitted that even the concerned IO
has recorded the statements of the family
members and relatives of Respondent No.2,
wherein, they have not stated anything about
uttering of caste based slurs by anyone and
further the statement of no independent witness
is recorded, which would also not support the
case of Respondent No.2 with regard to the
offence under the provisions of the Atrocities Act.
3.1 By making the above submissions, learned Advocate,
Mr. Rachh, prayed that this petition be allowed by quashing
and setting aside the impugned FIR and the consequential
proceedings.
4. Learned Advocate, Mr. Samani, appearing for the
original complainant vehemently opposed this petition and
submitted that a bare reading of the FIR constitutes a prima
facie offence and therefore, this Court may not interfere with
the proceedings, arising out of the impugned FIR.
4.1 It was submitted that the offence under the Atrocities
Act being a serious offence, the petitioner is required to be
put to trial.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3928/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
4.2 Insofar as the aspect of delay in filing the impugned
FIR is concerned, it was submitted that as the petitioner is a
headstrong person, it took some time for the petitioner to
gather courage and to file the FIR against him.
4.3 In regard to the contradictions in the intimation
application given to police and the complaint made to DSP,
Jamnagar, on 26.11.2021 vis-a-vis the impugned FIR filed
by Respondent No.2 are concerned, learned Advocate, Mr.
Samani, submitted that merely because there are
contradictions in the FIR, the same shall not dilute the
offence and offence will still remain and therefore, when the
complainant has specifically stated the name of the present
petitioner as one of the accused persons, a case is made out
against him and therefore, this petition be dismissed.
5. Learned APP, Mr. Raval, also opposed this petition and
prayed for dismissal of the same.
5.1 However, this Court when put a specific query to
learned APP, Mr. Raval, as to whether, the IO has recorded
the statement of any independent witness, so far as the
allegations under the provisions of the Atrocities Act are
concerned, learned APP fairly submitted that the persons,
whose statements have been recorded by the IO, happen to
be the relatives of the Respondent No.2 and there is no
statement of any independent witness available on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3928/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
record. He also fairly conceded that none of the witnesses
has supported the case of Respondent No.2, so far as the
allegations under the provisions of the Atrocities Act are
concerned and they are totally silent about the same.
6. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and
have also perused the material on record and I find that the
alleged incident took place on the night of 25.11.2021,
whereas, the impugned FIR in respect of the same came to
be filed after the delay of about two months, i.e. on
26.01.2022. Here, it may be noted that on 26.11.2021,
Respondent No.2 had given an intimation application to PI,
City 'A' Division Police Station, Jamnagar, wherein, he
stated that he has a suspicion that one Ayan Rafikbhai set
his motorcycle on fire and the name of the present petitioner
is not mentioned anywhere in the said application. Further,
there is also no mention about said Ayan Rafikbhai uttering
any caste based slurs against Respondent No.2 or his family
members in the said intimation application.
6.1 Now, if, the complaint dated 26.11.2021 given by
Respondent No.2 to DSP, Jamnagar, is perused, the same
was also given against one Ayan Rafikbhai Patni and an
unknown person and though, in the said complaint, there
are allegations of uttering caste based slurs are made, the
same are made against one Ayan Rafikbhai and the name of
the present petitioner is not mentioned in the entire
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3928/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
complaint.
6.2 Moreover, in relation to the complaints made by
Respondent No.2, when his statement was recorded by PI,
City 'A' Division Police Station, Jamnagar, on 04.12.2021,
i.e. prior to the filing of the impugned FIR on 26.01.2022,
Respondent No.2 had clearly stated that he does not know,
as to who had set his motorcycle on fire and that he had
given the name of Ayan Rafikbhai due to suspicion. Not only
that Respondent No.2 had also stated that he does not want
to lodge any FIR with regard to the said incident.
6.3 Under the circumstances, if, the stand taken by or the
versions given by Respondent No.2 in his intimation
application made to PI, City 'A' Division Police Station,
Jamnagar, and the complaint given to DSP, Jamnagar, both
dated 26.11.2021 as well as the statement given by
Respondent No.2 before police on 04.12.2021 are examined
along side the impugned FIR given by Respondent No.2 on
26.01.2022, then, it becomes clear that all along the case of
Respondent No.2 was that it was Ayan Rafikbhai, whom he
had suspected to have set his motorcycle on fire, and there
was not even a whisper about any over or covert act done by
the present petitioner. Therefore, this would clearly indicate
that the present petitioner is falsely roped in the impugned
FIR, as an afterthought and therefore, the continuation of
the proceedings, pursuant to the filing of the impugned FIR,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3928/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
qua the present petitioner would amount to abuse and the
misuse of the justice. Hence, the present petition deserves
to be allowed.
7. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the impugned
FIR, being CR No. 11202008220205 of 2022, registered with
'A' Division Police Station, Jamnagar, and all other
consequential proceedings arising from the said FIR are
quashed and set aside qua the present petitioner, only. Rule
is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
Sd./-
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
UMESH/-
