Gujarat High Court
Govindsinh Dajibhai Dabhi vs State Of Gujarat on 15 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3241/2017 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 3241 of 2017
==========================================================
GOVINDSINH DAJIBHAI DABHI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HRIDAY BUCH(2372) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR VIJAY H NANGESH(3981) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 15/09/2025
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
petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being II
CR No.145 of 2016 registered with Ranpur Police Station, for the
offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 read with Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 as well as all
other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua
the petitioner herein.
2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned advocate for
the respondent No.2 and learned APP for the respondent-State.
3. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the alleged incident is stated
to have occurred on 03.10.2016. The learned advocate for the
petitioner submitted that, in fact, the petitioner himself had
immediately approached the Superintendent of Police, Botad, on the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3241/2017 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
very same day regarding the altercation in question. However,
significantly, in the said application no allegation of caste-based
abuse or casteist slur was ever attributed to the petitioner. It is
further submitted that the impugned FIR came to be registered
belatedly on 05.10.2016, which clearly demonstrates an afterthought,
intended to falsely implicate the petitioner under the stringent
provisions of the Atrocities Act.
3.1. Learned advocate for the petitioner further contended that the
investigation having now been completed, the material collected
does not support the case of the complainant. On the contrary, an
independent witness, namely Anitaben, has specifically stated that
except for a mere verbal altercation, no caste-based abuses were
heard to have been uttered by the petitioner. Reliance has also been
placed upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench rendered in
Special Criminal Application No.7978 of 2016, whereby the
petitioner was granted anticipatory bail, the Bench having observed
that no prima facie case under the Atrocities Act was made out even
at that stage. On such submissions, it is prayed that the impugned
FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2
has opposed the petition, submitting that the FIR is clear and
categorical in its recitals, and it contains specific allegations of
casteist abuses attributed to the petitioner. It is urged that at this
stage, this Court ought not to enter into a roving inquiry into the
truthfulness of the allegations, which are required to be tested at
trial.
5. Learned APP has adopted the submissions advanced on behalf
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3241/2017 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
of respondent No.2 and has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties
and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds
that the allegations contained in the FIR, when read in their entirety,
fail to disclose the essential ingredients necessary to attract the
rigour of Section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities Act. There is nothing in the
record to indicate that the petitioner had intentionally insulted,
intimidated, or humiliated the complainant on account of his caste in
any place within public view. The solitary allegation of a verbal
altercation, unsupported by independent witnesses, falls short of
constituting the grave offence alleged. Further, the element of
afterthought is writ large, inasmuch as the petitioner's application to
the Superintendent of Police, made contemporaneously on the date
of the incident, contains no whisper of caste-based abuse.
7. It would be apposite to refer the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan
Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein, in Paragraph
102, it is held as under:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch.
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 Art. 226
or the inherent powers under sec. 482 of the Code
which we have extracted and reproduced above,
we give the 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3241/2017 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
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 a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of sec. 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 noncognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under sec. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/3241/2017 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
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 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."
8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered
opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the
present petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law and
result in manifest injustice.
9. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The
impugned FIR being II C.R. No.145 of 2016 registered with
Ranpur Police Station, as well as all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom qua the present petitioner, are hereby quashed and
set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANISH MISHRA
