R/CR.MA/16263/2020 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 16263 of 2020 ========================================================== CHIRAG DIPAKBHAI PATEL & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: MR NITIN T GANDHI(5620) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 ROHANKUMAR M AMIN(8851) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4 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 C.R. No.11191028201716 of 2020 registered with Vejalpur Police Station. 2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioners, learned advocate for the private respondent and learned APP for the respondent-state. 3. A perusal of the FIR reveals that it appears to be in two distinct parts. The first incident is stated to have occurred on 06.05.2020, wherein accused No.5 allegedly entered into an altercation with the complainant. As per the narration in the FIR, accused No.5 is said to have uttered certain derogatory remarks, whereafter other co-accused persons joined to support accused No.5 and are alleged to have used similar derogatory expressions or caste- R/CR.MA/16263/2020 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 based slurs. However, the scuffle is alleged to have subsided on that very day, and the record further indicates that the accused tendered a written note of regret to the complainant, which the complainant is stated to have accepted. 4. Subsequently, the FIR adverts to another incident dated 29.09.2020, wherein it is alleged that the accused reprimanded the security guard and once again resorted to the use of casteist slurs directed against him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that a bare reading of the impugned FIR, even if taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety, does not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to attract the penal provisions alleged. 6. Ergo, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash and set aside the impugned FIR and all further proceedings arising therefrom. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant, ably supported by the learned APP for the respondent–State, has vehemently opposed the present petition and prayed for its dismissal. It is their submission that the allegations narrated in the FIR, if taken at their face value, unequivocally disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Sections 294(b), 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Sections 3(1)(h) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 8. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, and upon a careful R/CR.MA/16263/2020 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 perusal of the FIR, this Court finds substantial force in the contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioners. The allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. 9. Insofar as the provisions of Section 294(b) IPC are concerned, the FIR does not reproduce the precise utterances alleged to have been made, which is a sine qua non for attracting the said provision. Likewise, the invocation of Section 506 IPC rests on vague and general assertions of intimidation, lacking the specificity required to constitute the offence of criminal intimidation. The application of Section 114 IPC is also unsustainable, as no foundational facts are disclosed in the FIR to establish abetment at the time of commission of the alleged acts. 10. With regard to the provisions of the Atrocities Act, it is trite law that for the invocation of Sections 3(1)(h) and 3(2)(v), there must be clear and unambiguous allegations that the acts complained of were committed solely on account of the caste of the complainant and in public view. The FIR, however, fails to attribute any such intention or motive to the petitioners. The mere use of generalized expressions, without particulars, cannot suffice to bring the alleged conduct within the sweep of the stringent provisions of the Atrocities Act. 11. The record itself indicates that after the first incident dated 06.05.2020, a note of regret was tendered and accepted by the complainant, which fortifies the absence of mens rea to insult or humiliate on caste lines. As regards the subsequent incident dated 29.09.2020, the allegations are omnibus in nature, and except for R/CR.MA/16263/2020 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 bald assertions, no material particulars are forthcoming to warrant the prosecution of the petitioners under the provisions invoked. 12. In these circumstances, compelling the petitioners to undergo the rigours of a criminal trial would serve no fruitful purpose and would, instead, amount to abuse of the process of law. This Court is therefore persuaded to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code to secure the ends of justice. 13. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. B.Bhajanlal & ors., AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon’ble Apex Court summed up the proposition of law, which reads as under:- “(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 ins the F.I.R. and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the code. (3) Where, the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same donot disclose the commission of any offence and make out the case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 S.155(2) of the Code. (5) Whether, the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are R/CR.MA/16263/2020 ORDER DATED: 15/09/2025 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 bare engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) toi the institution 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 malafide 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." 14. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned FIR being C.R. No.11191028201716 of 2020 registered with Vejalpur Police Station, as well as all further proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. (J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: MANISH MISHRA(HC01776), STENO GR II, at High Court of Gujarat on 18/09/2025 14:50:31