Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 595 (GUJ)

Pragnesh Godadbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2019-06-17

A.S.SUPEHIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent-State. 2. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the FIR registered at Deesa City (North) Police Station, District Banaskantha, being C.R.No.I-39 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 186, 294(B), 353, 354, 332, 143, 147, 148 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC). 3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is lodged by the respondent no.2, who is serving as Police Sub-Inspector at Deesa City (North) Police Station, District Banaskantha belatedly after a period of one and half months from the date of incident. He has submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged with mala fide intention since the present petitioner no.1 had filed a complaint against her on 03.04.2016. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner no.1 had given written complaint to the District Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha alleging that the respondent no.2-complainant had beaten him. He has further submitted that since nothing was done on his complaint, the present petitioner filed Special Criminal Application No.3365 of 2016 before this Court seeking directions against the respondent authorities to register the F.I.R. against the respondent no.2. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr. Majmudar that vide order dated 18.05.2016, this Court had directed the District Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha to consider the complaint of the petitioner dated 03.04.2016 and decide whether the same discloses commission of any cognizable offence or not. He has also submitted that after the order passed by this Court, the respondent no.2, who was the Police Sub Inspector has lodged the impugned F.I.R. for the alleged offence under Sections 186, 294(B), 353, 354, 332, 143, 147, 148 and 506(2) of the IPC. Thus, it is urged by learned advocate Mr. Majmudar that the impugned F.I.R. being C.R.No.I-39 of 2016 is required to be quashed and set aside on the ground of delay since the respondent no.2 being a Police Officer could not have lodged the complaint belatedly for the alleged offence. 5. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt on the instructions of Mr. Thus, it is urged by learned advocate Mr. Majmudar that the impugned F.I.R. being C.R.No.I-39 of 2016 is required to be quashed and set aside on the ground of delay since the respondent no.2 being a Police Officer could not have lodged the complaint belatedly for the alleged offence. 5. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt on the instructions of Mr. Vijaysinh Chandrasinh, Buckle No.1362, Deesa City (North) Police Station, District Banaskantha, has submitted that there was a delay on behalf of the respondent no.2 in lodging the impugned F.I.R. because she had sent a report to the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deesa for giving necessary instructions in regard to the incident. She has submitted that after receiving the same vide letter dated 24.05.2016 from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deesa, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on 28.05.2016. She has further submitted that the respondent no.2 was on Bandobast on 23.05.2016 to 26.05.2016 and after the duties in the Bandobast, she lodged the F.I.R. on 28.05.2016 and hence, there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. Thus, she has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. may not be quashed and set aside. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. I have also perused the necessary documents as pointed out by the learned APP. 7. The fact, which is not in dispute, is that the petitioner no.1 vide complaint dated 03.04.2016 has requested the District Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha at Palanpur to register an F.I.R. against the respondent no.2 for the alleged incident of beating him by the stick. It is alleged by the petitioner no.1 that the respondent no.2 had assaulted him and also dragged him as well as abused him on 02.04.2016. Since the complaint/application filed by the petitioner no.1 was ignored and no action was taken on his complaint, the petitioner no.1 filed Special Criminal Application No.3365 of 2016 seeking direction to lodge an F.I.R. against the respondent no.2. By order dated 18.05.2016 passed in Special Criminal Application No.3365 of 2016, this Court had directed the District Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha at Palanpur to consider the application of the petitioner and decide whether the same discloses commission of any cognizable offence or not. 8. By order dated 18.05.2016 passed in Special Criminal Application No.3365 of 2016, this Court had directed the District Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha at Palanpur to consider the application of the petitioner and decide whether the same discloses commission of any cognizable offence or not. 8. It appears that after the order was passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.3365 of 2016 on the complaint of the petitioner no.1 alleging assault carried out by the respondent no.2-complainant, the respondent no.2-complainant filed the impugned F.I.R. on 28.05.2016 against the present petitioners. This Court has also perused the communication dated 24.05.2016 written by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deesa on the report of the present petitioners, which was made on 19.05.2016. Thus, after the order of this Court, which was passed on 18.05.2016 in Special Criminal Application No.3365 of 2016, the respondent no.2 asked the concerned District Superintendent of Police vide letter dated 19.05.2016 for lodging the complaint against the respondent no.2. From the facts, as narrated hereinabove, the lodging of the F.I.R. by the respondent no.2 on 28.05.2016 for the incident, which occurred on 22.04.2016, it is manifest that the same can be termed as an afterthought and it is only with a mala fide intention. In order to harass the present petitioners, the same is lodged. It appears that the respondent no.2 has lodged the impugned F.I.R. as a counter blast after the order was passed against her by this Court on 18.05.2016 directing the District Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha at Palanpur to take action on the complaint dated 03.04.2016 filed by the petitioner no.1. 9. There is no satisfactory explanation given by the respondent no.2 in lodging the impugned F.I.R. belatedly after a period of almost one and half months. The respondent no.2 being a Police Sub-Inspector was very well aware of the niceties of the law and provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as Criminal Procedure Code. If the incident, as narrated herein, had occurred on 02.04.2016, the respondent no.2, who was a Police Officer, was expected of lodging the F.I.R. promptly on the very same day, but it appears that the same is only lodged after the order passed by this Court on the complaint filed by the petitioner no.1 against her. 10. If the incident, as narrated herein, had occurred on 02.04.2016, the respondent no.2, who was a Police Officer, was expected of lodging the F.I.R. promptly on the very same day, but it appears that the same is only lodged after the order passed by this Court on the complaint filed by the petitioner no.1 against her. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the instant case the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is required to be exercised for securing the ends of justice. If the prosecution is further allowed to be continued pursuant to the impugned FIR, grave injustice would be caused to the petitioner as well as to his family. 11. Under the circumstances and on the backdrop of the aforenoted facts as well as analysis, the impugned F.I.R. is not required to be sustained. The present petition is allowed. Impugned F.I.R. being C.R.No.I-39 of 2016 registered at Deesa City (North) Police Station, District Banaskantha, as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service permitted.