Gujarat High Court
Milanbhai Alias Maheshkumar ... vs State Of Gujarat on 11 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4348/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 4348 of 2017
==========================================================
MILANBHAI ALIAS MAHESHKUMAR PARSHOTTAMBHAI MALI(GOHIL) &
ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HRIDAY BUCH FOR MR ANKIT Y BACHANI(5424) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1,2
MR AMIT N CHAUDHARY(5599) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR SOHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 11/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"),
the petitioners has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR
being I-C.R.No.7 of 2017 registered with Palanpur Taluka Police
Station, Banaskantha for the offences punishable under
Sections 365, 506(2), 114 of the IPC, u/s 3(1)(r)(s), 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 petitioners herein.
2. Seeking quashment of FIR, learned advocate Mr.Hriday
Buch along with learned advocate Mr.Ankit Bachani for the
petitioners mainly argued that complainant has suppressed
material facts while lodging complaint. It is submitted that it is
gross abuse of process and no such incident ever took place. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4348/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
submitted that as per FIR, signature of the complainant was
obtained on three blank papers, however, no such blank papers
were ever obtained during investigation or in any other
proceedings. It is submitted that complainant has executed sale
deed of disputed land in favour of Manjulaben, one of the
partner of accused. This fact is also suppressed in FIR. Learned
advocate Mr.Buch referred to copy of plaint filed by third party -
Babubhai Bhil before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Palanpur against complainant and accused seeking cancellation
of sale deed No.4088 dated 12.07.2016. It is submitted that
thus, it is established that sale deed was executed by respondent
nos.1,2 and 3 of the suit in favour of Manjulaben and others. It
is submitted that in total three applications were canvassed to
the PSI, Taluka Police Station, Palanpur (Annexure D,E and F)
prior to filing of FIR by complainant which demonstrate that
complainant after selling disputed land was in attempt of taking
away land. It is submitted that FIR is filed with identical
malicious object. Therefore, it is submitted that it is abuse of
process and submitted to allow the petition.
2.1. As far as offence under Atrocities Act are concerned, it is
specifically argued by learned advocate Mr.Buch that even if it is
believed that accused have spoken word stated in the
complainant to derogate complainant on his caste and that has
to be treated as castlier slur, according to FIR, they were spoken
within Car and therefore, it does not attract offence under
Atrocities Act i.e. spoken in public view.
2.2. Upon above submissions, it is submitted to allow the
petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4348/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
3. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Chaudhary for
complainant submitted that petition is filed at threshold of filing
of FIR. Investigation might not have been carried in the offence
which may support case of the complainant.
3.1. Upon above submissions, it is submitted to dismiss the
petition. However, he could not point out why complainant has
suppressed material facts of filing previous suit between the
parties as well as three different complaints canvassed by one of
the accused to PSI, Palanpur.
4. Learned APP for respondent State adopted the arguments
of learned advocate Mr.Chaudhary and submitted to dismiss the
petition as it is filed at threshold of filing of FIR.
5. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused
record. In recent judgment in the case of B.N. John v. State of
U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7, Hon'ble Apex Court held as
under: -
"7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it
is now more or less well settled as regards the principles to
be applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the
decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal,
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court has summarized
some of the principles under which FIR/complaints/criminal
cases could be quashed in the following words:
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4348/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
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 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 non-cognizable
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4348/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to a private and personal grudge."
(emphasis added)
8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6) would
be of relevance to us in this case.
In clause (1) it has been mentioned that 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, then the FIR or the complaint can be
quashed.
As per clause (4), where the allegations in the FIR do
not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only
a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order dated by the
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of
the CrPC, and in such a situation, the FIR can be
quashed.
Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an
express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of
the CrPC or the concerned Act under which the
criminal proceedings are instituted, such proceedings
can be quashed."
6. Applying aforesaid ratio, if we examine FIR in record, it is
evident that complainant has suppressed material facts i.e. filing
of suit by third party against complainant as well as accused
and purchaser to cancel sale of land bearing survey No.25 of
Village Pakhwana, sale deed of which has been registered vide
No.4088/2016 dated 12.07.2016. This document is irrefutable in
nature. If any document relied upon by the accused is irrefutable
in nature and existence of which is not required in trial, then it
can be considered by the Court at this stage in quashing FIR.
Apart from suppression of material facts of filing plaint by third
party against complainant as well as accused, other facts are
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4348/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
that prior to filing of questioned FIR, accused - Hareshbhai,
Sureshbhai and Manjulaben etc. have filed three complainants
(Annexure D,E and F) before PSI, Taluka Police Station,
Palanpur who are associated with purchase of disputed land,
which shows apprehension that they will be falsely implicated by
the first informant.
7. Aforesaid facts aptly put FIR in cadre of non existence. Be
that as it may. FIR if taken on record, except bare words that
complainant was abducted by the accused in car and obtained
signature on blank papers, no other allegations are levelled in
this incident. According to complainant incident took place on
21.01.2017 but comes to police station after consulting other
persons only on 03.02.2017. No explanation has been offered
about delay which becomes significant as allegations of
abduction is made against the accused. Learned advocate
Mr.Chaudhary could not point out whether blank papers on
which signature of complainant was obtained were used
anywhere in any other proceedings.
8. Allegations of speaking castier slur are also alleged,
however, same is alleged to have been spoken in car. It fails to
attract necessity of offence under Atrocities Act as it is not
spoken within public view.
9. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/4348/2017 ORDER DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
to humiliate in place within public view. Thus, the ingredients
alleged under the Atrocities Act are missing from the FIR. None
of the allegations made in the FIR would attract the offence
under the Atrocities Act.
10. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. The
impugned FIR being I-C.R.No.7 of 2017 registered with Palanpur
Taluka Police Station, Banaskantha filed against the present
petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all
other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also
quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is
permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
