R/CR.MA/22365/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO.22365 of 2023 ========================================= JABIR MUSA BACCHHA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================= Appearance : MR NADEEM B MANSURI for the Applicant. MR RONAK RAVAL, APP for the Respondent No.1. ========================================= CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Date : 10/07/2025 ORAL ORDER 1. By way of this petition, the applicant has prayed to quash FIR No.11199039210104 of 2021 registered with Palej Police Station, Bharuch for the offences punishble under Sections 354A, 323, 504, 506 (1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the FIR registered by the respondent No.2, namely, Anishaben Yakub Bachha, aged 33 years, she is serving as a Teacher in the Mission School since last two years and at around 10.00 in the morning, since last two to four days from the date of incident, when she was proceeding to the School to perform her duty, while starting her Scooty, applicant No.1 asked for her mobile number and, therefore, on the date of incident, he came near her Scooty and gave a pat on her thigh and when the complainant moved back, the applicant put his hand on her breast and asked her not to shout and thereafter, he got angry and started beating her. The complainant was having fractured left hand and, R/CR.MA/22365/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 therefore, it started paining and applicant started abusing her and threatened her to kill and, therefore, she called her sister and at that time, the sister of the complainant as well as the mother of the applicant also came out and mother of the applicant caught-hold of the hair of the complainant and started giving kick and fist blows to her and even the brother of the complainant also was beaten at that time and thereafter, the complainant was taken to Patel Welfare Hospital and FIR was registered. 3. Mr. Nadeem Mansuri, learned advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a practising advocate at Sessions Court, Vadodara. He further submitted that the impugned FIR is bogus as no such incident as alleged in the FIR had ever happened. Even the charge-sheet papers also does not disclose anything more than what is stated in the impugned FIR and the FIR is only one paragraph FIR. Therefore, in view of the very short narration of the incident, the same cannot be believed. He further submitted that the complainant is habitual of filing false and frivolous complaints and thereby extorting money from the persons who are named in the complaint. Therefore, this is a fit case for this Court to exercise power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 3.1 In support of his submissions, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu Kumar Shukla and another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another decided on 28.11.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.3618 of 2023 and by relying upon paragraph 23 of the said decision, he submitted that the applicants are required to be protected against vexatious and unwarranted criminal prosecution. Page 2 of 5 R/CR.MA/22365/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 3.2 He further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, decided on 2.1.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2025 and by relying upon paragraph 12.4 of the said decision, he submitted that it is well settled that for mens rea to be established, something better than vague statements must be produced before the Court. He, therefore, submitted that there are no direct allegations nor any evidence to support the version of the complainant/prosecution and, therefore, it cannot be said that offence under Section 354 of IPC is made out against the applicant. He, therefore, prayed for quashing of the impugned FIR and all the consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR. 4. Mr. Ronak Raval, learned APP vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the complainant herself is the victim and she has specifically stated in the FIR that just before 3 to 4 days, accused asked for her mobile number and as she refused to give, he first approached her at the time when she was proceeding towards her School and gave a pat on her thigh and thereafter, inappropriately touched on her breast and hence, the aforesaid incident is indicative of the fact that offence under Section 354 of IPC is made out. Further, the complainant was proceeding to perform her duty as a teacher in the school and it was the applicant who came near her and made this inappropriate gesture and, therefore, offence under Section 354 of IPC is made out against the applicant. Therefore, when the prima facie offence is made out and charge-sheet is filed and charge is also framed and one witness is also examined in the trial, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. Page 3 of 5 R/CR.MA/22365/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 5. As far as the decisions relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Mansuri are concerned, learned APP submitted that in the instant case, the allegations against the applicant cannot be said to be malafide or vexatious as the victim herself is the complainant and the intention is evident from the bear reading of the FIR that the intention was to outrage the modesty of the victim and, therefore, the petition may be dismissed considering the fact that the trial is in advance stage. 6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, I found that there are specific and direct allegations against the applicant that just before two to four days, he asked for mobile number of the complainant. However, on the date of the incident, when the complainant was going to the school to perform her duties, at that time, he came close to her, gave pat on thigh and put his hand on her breast. The aforesaid gesture itself would indicate that the said gesture was inappropriate and the same would amount to outraging the modesty of the complainant coupled with the fact that the applicant had threatened the complainant that she must not shout and started beating and abusing her and his mother also joined later, prima facie offence is made out against the applicant. Further, the trial is in advance stage as charge is framed and one witness is already examined. Further, there are catena of decisions that unless there are exceptional circumstances, the Court should not interfere in the process of trial. In the instant case, except for the fact that the applicant is alleged to be practising advocate at Vadodara, no other circumstances are shown. The only other aspect that was R/CR.MA/22365/2023 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 submitted before the Court was the fact that complainant has indulged into similar kind of complaints against other persons as well to extort money from them. However, the aforesaid is a matter of evidence and the same cannot be believed as gospel truth and, therefore, the same cannot be considered by this Court. 7. Accordingly, I do not see any reason to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) SAVARIYA Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: RAJNISH NARENDRA SAVARIYA(HC00179), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/07/2025 17:15:56