Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 127 (GUJ)

Ajitbhai Mandanbhai Sonara v. State of Gujarat

2025-02-18

J.C.DOSHI

body2025
ORDER : (J. C. DOSHI, J.) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Poojara for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondents State. 2. Though respondent No.2 - original complainant is served, none appears on his behalf. 3. 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.11213043210081 registered with Patanvav Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(f) of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribne (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short “the Act”) as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 4.1 It is alleged in the FIR filed by the respondent no.2 that he resides with his family and also he is leading member of his community. It is stated that in pursuance to an application submitted on 25-3-2021 to the Patanvav Police Station, along with complaint his was he came man community given and inter alia contending that on 16-2-2018, Resolution a was passed by the Gram Panchayat Chhadavavdar in favour of Dalit Samaj for allotment of land for Community Hall, the land situated near water tank which is a old gramtal, 500 sq.mtrs. of land, for which a Resolution No.8 was passed and with the help of community people and village people, construction put up to plinth level was made. It is stated that a temple situated in the village, same was also used by the people of their community. It is stated that on 23-3-2021, at about 11.00 a.m. a stone was kept so as to see that people of their community may not use the land. It is stated that on 24-3-2021 it so happened that benches which were placed with the help of grant of MLA and used by people of the community, those benches were also taken away and thereby disturbance is made to the people of their community. It is stated that all these things were done by one Ajitbhai Mandanbhai and it is also stated that they were not aware about the cancellation of the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 16-2-2018 and for which a representation is also made to the Deputy Collector. With these allegations the FIR came to be filed. 5. Learned advocate Mr. It is stated that all these things were done by one Ajitbhai Mandanbhai and it is also stated that they were not aware about the cancellation of the Resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 16-2-2018 and for which a representation is also made to the Deputy Collector. With these allegations the FIR came to be filed. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Poojara for the petitioner taking this Court through the contents of the FIR as well as documents annexed with the petitioner would submit that initially, Chhadavadar Gram Panchayat passed resolution to allot 500 sq mtr land to Dalit community – SC/ST community for construction of community hall. Such resolution was passed subject to the approval from the concerned Mamlatdar. He would further submit that in view of that, there was no specific averment made to the Dalit community – SC/ST community by the Chhadavadar Gram Panchayat, but the resolution for allotment of 500 sq mtr landf was subject to the approval from the Mamlatdar concerned. He would further submit that several people from village Chhadavadar raised objection against allotment of land to Dalit community – SC/ST community for construction of community hall and pursuant to which, vide Annexure F, the Chhadavadar Gram Panchayat has cancelled allotment on the ground that though it has passed the resolution, it has no authority to allot any such land to any person and therefore, recalled earlier resolution. He would further submit that in view of such, it appears that the FIR is totally abuse of process of law as it does not satisfy basic ingredients of section 3(1)(f) of the Act. He would further submit that the land, which was proposed to allot to the Dalit community – SC/ST community would never occupy or cultivated by the petitioner. He would further submit that upon apprehension of wrongly arraigned in the offence, the petitioner has filed written statement on 24.3.2021 to the PSI, Patanvav Police Station. He would further submit that looking to the facts and more particularly, contents of the FIR since they failed to satisfy ingredients of section 3(1)(f) of the Act, allowing the FIR to proceed further for trial would be abuse of process of law and therefore, he submits to allow this petition. 6. He would further submit that looking to the facts and more particularly, contents of the FIR since they failed to satisfy ingredients of section 3(1)(f) of the Act, allowing the FIR to proceed further for trial would be abuse of process of law and therefore, he submits to allow this petition. 6. Per contra, learned APP referred to the FIR on record would submit that the allegations levelled in the FIR deserves to be decided during trial and therefore, at the threshold, the FIR may not be scuttled. Upon such submission, he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides, let refer section 3(1)(f) of the Atrocities Act as under:- “Sec.3(1) (f): Wrongfully occupies or cultivate any land owned by, or in the possession of, or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, gets such land transferred." 7.1 Plain reading of section 3(1)(f) of the Act indicates that if someone wrongly occupies or cultivate any land owned by, or in the possession of, or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, gets such land transferred, then such person has committed offence u/s 3(1)(f) of the Act. 8. The FIR on record if reads as it is, does not allege that the petitioner has wrongly occupied or cultivated any land, which is owned member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The facts of the case demonstrates that by Annexure C, resolution No.8 was passed by the Chhadavadar Gram Panchayat to allot 500 sq mtr land to Dalit community – SC/ST community for construction of community hall near water tank behind the Chhadavadar Gram Panchayat for construction of community hall for Dalit community – SC/ST community. Such resolution was subject to the approval of the Mamlatdar concerned being the competent authority. Several people from village Chhadavadar raised objection against allotment of land to Dalit community – SC/ST community for construction of community hall and pursuant to which, vide Annexure F, the Chhadavadar Gram Panchayat has cancelled allotment on the ground that though it has passed the resolution, it has no authority to allot any such land to any person and therefore, recalled earlier resolution. Under these circumstances, since basic ingredients of section 3(1)(f) of the Act are missing in the FIR, further continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the impugned FIR against the petitioner would be abuse of process of law. Prima facie, it appears that the criminal proceedings are manifestly launched with mala fide and ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. 9. 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 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. (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." 9.1 The findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 1,3,5 and 7 are attracted in the present case. In view of above, present petition dserves consideration. 10. Resultantly, this application is allowed. The impugned being C.R.No.11213043210081 registered with Patanvav Police Station filed against the present petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, all other proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR are also quashed and set aside. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. 11. The State, if so thinks fit, would be at liberty to recover the amount of compensation, if any, granted to the complainant.