[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Rameshkumar Jadavbhai Savani I.P.S vs The State Of Gujarat on 6 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/501/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER
PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 501 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
============================================
RAMESHKUMAR JADAVBHAI SAVANI I.P.S.,
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
============================================
Appearance:
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 06/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1. By way of filing present revision application under Sections 397
read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
applicant - accused has sought for following relief :
"[A] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set
aside the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer,
fast Track Court No.10, Nadiad dtd. July 15, 2006 below
Application Ex.38 directing the present petitioner to be
joined as an accused in Sessions Case No.144 of 2001."
2. The brief facts of the present case are as under :-
2.1. That the applicant was serving as Deputy Superintendent
of Police at Nadiad during 1992-94. On 28.05.1993, reitred
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/501/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
Head Constrable RM Vaghela, father of Constable Bipin
Vaghela attached to Limbasi Police Station and describing
himself as a social worker, lodged FIR against the
applicant, four others and a mob of about 100 persons for
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332,
395, 120B, 34 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and
section 3(11) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (which shall
hereinafter be referred to as "the Act"). The complainant
alleged that he was informed by one Keshavkumar about
assault on his son Bipin, who was assisting PSI Vaghela in
investigation of CR No.I-21/1993 of Limbasi Police Station
for offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian
Penal Code. While recording statements of Police
Constable Badesing and Head Constable Ramjibhai near
Ramji Bhuvan at about 04.30 p.m., the applicant along
with Popatbhai Kanubhai, Rajubhai Shah and others with a
mob of 100 persons arrived, abused them, demanded
tying Bipin and PSI Vaghela with rope and taking them to
police station; the applicant used caste name, instigated
the mob, who assaulted Bipin and robbed his wrist watch,
chain and Rs.700/- besides threatening dismissal from the
service if complaint was lodged.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/501/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
2.2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be
filed against 10 accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 149, 332, 333 and 506(2) of the IPC and the
Investigating Officer submitted a report before the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Matar, wherein, he has reported
that the victim was not a member of Scheduled Caste and
he is Christian by birther and therefore, no offence is made
out under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. The
Investigating Officer has submitted another report under
Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which shall
hereinafter be referred to as "the Code"), stating that no
offence is made out against the applicant and therefore, no
chalan was filed under Section 173 of the Code.
2.3. The remaining accused were charge-sheeted and the
learned Magistrate considering the charges triable by
Sessions Court committed the case to the Fast Track Court
No.10, Nadiad (which shall hereinafter be referred to as
"Sessions Court") as envisaged under Section 209 of the
Code. The matter is registered and numbered as Sessions
Case No.144 of 2001.
2.4. The learned Fast Track Court No.10, Nadiad framed the
charge against those accused for the offences punishable
under Sections 147, 149, 332, 395, 120B read with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/501/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
Sections 149 and 34 of the IPC. Thereafter, the
prosecution has examined two witnesses PW No.1 -
Ratnaji Muljibhai Vaghela i.e. complainant who is father of
the injured at Exhibit 34 and PW-2 Bipinbhai Vaghela i.e.
victim of the incident at Exhibit 36.
2.5. Before cross-examination of the PW-2, the learned APP
attached with the learned trial Court submitted an
application at Exhibit 38 under Section 319 of the Code, to
join the present applicant as an accused. The learned
Sessions Court vide order dated 15.07.2006, allowed the
application at Exhibit 38 and ordered the present applicant
to be joined as an accused and the witnesses examined
were ordered to be recalled. Being aggrieved by the order
dated 15.07.2006 below Exhibit 38, the present applicant
has filed the present revision application.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. B. M. Mangukiya, for the applicant
and learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval, for the respondent - State, at
length.
4. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties
and perusing the evidence it reveals that the learned Sessions
Court has invoked the power under Section 319 of the Code
while recording the evidence of PW-1 - Ratnaji Muljibhai Vaghela
i.e. complainant who is father of the injured at Exhibit 34, and in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/501/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
context that the applicant had insulted and used derogatory
language against the victim and also keeping in mind the
provision of Atrocities Act the Sessions Judge has assigned the
reasons. If we peruse the evidence it appears that the applicant
was Deputy Superintendent of Police and the complainant was
his Sub-ordinate when the alleged incident took place. On earlier
point of time the applicant was released and report under
Section 169 of the Code was filed before the learned JMFC and
even sanction was not accorded. Without completing recording
of evidence of PW-2 and even he was not cross-examined and
straightaway application under Section 319 of the Code was filed
by the prosecution. Considering that the applicant is involved in
the alleged offence and learned Sessions Judge has considered
the evidence of PW-1 examined at Exhibit 34, wherein, he has
clearly stated that at the time of incident he was not present and
based on the information received from the people he has
lodged the complaint and he has also admitted that as per the
information received or gathered based on that he has
submitted that the present application in the capacity of Deputy
Superintendent of Police was unanswerable. Except this no
evidence reveals from the PW-1. So far the PW-2 is concerned
he examined at Exhibit 36, he happens to be son of the PW-1
complainant and he has also deposed on the same line of the
PW-1, whereas, his cross-examination remained incomplete.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/501/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
Thereafter, the prosecution has filed an application under
Section 319 of the Code to join the present applicant as an
accused in the present offence. The learned Sessions Judge
assigned the reasons based on which invocation of Atrocities Act
and intentional insult was done qua caste of the victim.
5. Learned Advocate for the applicant has disputed the caste and
applicability of Atrocities Act as no material is collected or
produced on record. Perusing the charge-sheet papers and
charge framed by the learned Sessions Court, the provisions of
Atrocities Act are not invocable as well as in this regard no
further discussion is required.
6. Now coming back to the offence qua insult or causing injury, no
such evidence revealed which may be considered as enough or
sufficient more than prima facie evidence which suggest
involvement of the applicant in the present offence. Mere,
suspicion of involvement of the proposed accused - applicant is
not sufficient and to proceed against the proposed accused there
must be some material or evidence which suggest more than
prima facie evidence regarding involvement of the applicant. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines as to under
which circumstances the provision of Section 319 of the Code is
required to be invoked and further also directed as to how to
prevent Section 319 and principle is also summarized in the case
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/501/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
between Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab, reported in
(2014) 3 SCC 91; the Hon'ble Constitutional Bench in case of
Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, reported in
(2023) 1 SCC 89; in case between Juhru and others Vs.
Karim and another, reported in (2023) 5 SCC 406, in case
between Naveen Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2022)
10 SCC 537, as well as Michael Machado Vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 262, it clearly
reveals the power of summoning under Section 319 of the Code
is not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more than a
prima facie case is sine qua non to summon an additional
accused. With a view to prevent the frequent misuse to power to
summon additional accused under Section 319 of the Code, and
in conformity with the binding judicial dictums of the Supreme
Court, the procedural safeguard can be that ordinarily the
summoning of a person at the very threshold of the trial may be
discouraged and the trial court must evaluate the evidence
against the persons sought to be summoned and then adjudge
whether such material, more or less, carry the same weightage
and value as has been testified against those who are already
facing trial. In the absence of any credible evidence, the power
under Section 319 of the Code ought not to be invoked.
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the vie that the learned
Sesssions Judge has committed error in passing the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/501/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2026
undefined
order and therefore interference of this Court is required keeping
in mind the aforesaid authorities qua exercise of powers under
Section 319 of the Code. Herein the learned Sessions Judge has
improperly exercised the discretion hence the impugned order is
required to be quashed and set aside.
8. Accordingly, present revision application is allowed. The order
dated 15.07.2006, below Exhibit 38, passed by the learned
Presiding Officer, 10th Fast Track Court, Nadiad in Sessions Case
No.144 of 2001 is hereby quashed and set aside.
9. Keeping in mind the aforesaid settled principle of law it is kept
open for that if the prosecution is able to lead any prima facie
evidence which suggest involvement of the applicant, in that
event it is kept open for the learned Sessions Judge to exercise
the discretion, without being influenced by any observations
made by this Court in the present order.
10. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. The learned
Sessions Judge is directed to proceed with the matter.
11. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned
Court forthwith.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ANKIT JANSARI
