Gujarat High Court
Vijaysinh Abhaysinh Handa vs State Of Gujarat on 16 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3930/2015 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 3930 of 2015
==========================================================
VIJAYSINH ABHAYSINH HANDA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAYSINH R JADEJA(6542) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 16/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned APP waives the Rule.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati appearing for
the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 though served, did not remain
present. Also heard learned APP Mr. Tirthraj Pandya appearing
for the State.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati submits that the
complainant is assuming the multiple names, sometimes she
becomes Triveniben and sometimes she becomes Divyaben. Even
Police has filed the Criminal Complaint against her alleging that
she is honey trapping various persons. Learned advocate Mr.
Maulik Nanavati would submit that the petitioner has lodged
multiple complaints against the complainant on pretext of honey
trapping. She is making all efforts to extort money from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3930/2015 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
various persons including the petitioner. Mr. Maulik Nanavati
further submits that perusal of the FIR do not indicate any of the
ingredients which may attract the offence under Section 506(2)
of Indian Penal Code. He therefore submits that sending
petitioner to the trial would be absurd process.
4. Upon above submissions, he submits to allow this petition.
5. Since the Investigating Office did not care to remain
present, learned APP is not in a position to point out any
different facts. On reading of the FIR, he further submits that
the petitioner has attempted for the dire consequences and
therefore the ingredients are coming from bare reading of FIR,
hence the petition may not be allowed.
6. Have heard learned advocates from both the sides and also
gone through the facts and records of the case.
7. At Annexure-C, the petitioner has placed on record various
complaints addressed to Superintendent of Police, Rajkot that
the complainant Divyaben alias Triveniben has wrongly filed
various complaints and thereby she is causing annoyance to the
petitioner.
8. The gist of the FIR reads as under:
"Before about three days from now, this
Rajnishbhai Maganbhai and Vijaysinh
Abhaysinh, both of them have got together and
are harassing me by sending unknown persons
to my house. They are trying to kill me. And I
have one child each from both of them. I do not
have money to buy food and to pay light-bill and
as I am frequently asking money, both of them
are threatening to kill me. Therefore, it is my
complaint to take legal action against both of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3930/2015 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
them. Meet Soni, an accomplice of Rajnish also
threatens me."
9. The FIR is filed under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal
Code. Section 506(2) of Indian Penal Code reads as under:
"It is punishment section for criminal intimidation
and if someone has been given threat to death,
grievous hurt or destruction of property by fire or
to cause an offense punishable with death or life
imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term which
may extend to seven years, etc., if found from
the FIR prima facie attracts criminal intimidation
state 506(2)."
10. However criminal intimidation is defined in Section 503 of
Indian Penal Code reads as under:
"Whoever threatens another with any injury to
his person, reputation or property, or to the
person or reputation of any one in whom that
person is interested, with intent to cause alarm
to that person, or to cause that person to do any
act which he is not legally bound to do, or to
omit to do any act which that person is legally
entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat, commits criminal
intimidation."
11. The bare reading of the Section 503 of Indian Penal Code
indicates that such an intimidation, insult or annoyance should
be caused/quashed alarm to that person to do any act which he
is legally to bound to do so or to omit to do any act which that
person is legally entitled to do.
12. In the present case, bare reading of FIR, gist of which are
produced herein above does not attract any of the ingredients
and therefore sending the petitioner for trial would be an absurd
process.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/3930/2015 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2025
undefined
13. Taking assistance from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335, I am of the opinion that this deserves consideration
and accordingly it is allowed. Impugned FIR being CR No. II. 77
of 2015 registered with Malviyanagar Police Station, Rajkot and
all consequential proceedings arisen from the FIR are hereby
quashed.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
AHS
