Gujarat High CourtBhanumatiben Bhagel & 3 vs State Of Gujarat & on 21 June, 2017Author:A.Y. KogjeBench:A.Y. KogjeR/CR.MA/15118/2010                                                  JUDGMENT




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
                                      FIR/ORDER) NO. 15118 of 2010



         FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:



         HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE                                 Sd/-
         ================================================================
         1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                               No
               to see the judgment ?

         2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                                        No

         3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of                           No
               the judgment ?

         4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of                           No
               law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
               India or any order made thereunder ?

         ================================================================
                          BHANUMATIBEN BHAGEL & 3....Applicant(s)
                                         Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
         ================================================================
         Appearance:
         MS SANDHYA D NATANI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 4
         MR BHUNESH C RUPERA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         MR MM MANDLI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         MR HK PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
         ================================================================

             CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE

                                            Date : 21/06/2017


                                           ORAL JUDGMENT1.             This application is filed under Section 482 ofPage 1 of 6HC-NIC                                        Page 1 of 6      Created On Sun Aug 20 01:15:48 IST 2017
                  R/CR.MA/15118/2010                                                          JUDGMENT



         theCriminal Procedure Codefor quashing of FIR being CR

         No.I-262       of    2010          registered              with      Meghaninagar              Police

         Station, Ahmedabad.                    The FIR came to be registered at the

         behest of respondent No.2 - Sumanben for offences underSections 323,294(C),337,452,427and114of the Indian

         Penal Code.         The FIR is filed against five persons, which

         includes all four applicants herein.1.1            In the FIR, it is alleged that on account of

         some    altercation               with          applicant          No.1-Bhanumatiben                    in

         connection with residential premises, an incident in the

         night    of     05.12.2010                 to    06.12.2010            took       place,        where

         accused       Nos.2          to        5    participated              in      assaulting            the

         complainant         and       witness             Ravindra           Ramsevak          Pal.             On

         account of such assault, control room was called and the

         complainant and witness Ravindra Ramsevak Pal were taken

         to Civil Hospital where they were treated.2.             Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted

         that the present FIR is a counter-blast to the previous

         application         made          by       applicant          No.1     against          one     Manoj

         Bhadoriya and S.P.Bhadoriya, both brothers and notorious

         criminals, who have large number of antecedents.                                                  They

         were indulging in the activity of grabbing of residential

         premises and are having shop just beneath residence of

         applicant       No.1.             Applicant               No.1    filed       two      complaints

         against Bhadoriya brothers, one on 01.12.2010 and secondPage 2 of 6HC-NIC                                               Page 2 of 6       Created On Sun Aug 20 01:15:48 IST 2017
                  R/CR.MA/15118/2010                                                      JUDGMENT



         on     06.12.2010,            which          subsequently                culminated           into

         registration of an FIR NO.3289 of 2010 with Meghaninagar

         Police      Station          and    therefore,            as    a    counter-blast,                 on

         07.12.2010, the present FIR is filed by respondent No.2,

         who admittedly is a partner of Bhadoriya brothers and is

         also     operating           as     an      advocate           from       the      same       shop

         belonging to Bhadoriya brothers.2.1            Learned Advocate for the applicants submitted

         that the allegations levelled in the FIR do not attribute

         any    role       to     applicant              No.1      regarding             incident            of

         06.12.2010, still at the behest of Bhadoriya brothers,

         name of applicant No.1 is implicated.                               She submitted that

         the    allegations            levelled           are      so     improbable            that         no

         reliance can be placed on such allegations.


         2.2            She     submitted            that       the     only      witness-Ravindra

         Ramsevak Pal has already retracted his statement and in

         his application to police authority, has stated that he

         was not even present at the time and place of incident

         and    he    has       been        wrongly        cited        as    a    witness.              She

         submitted that the allegations are not substantiated by

         any medical report.3.             Learned APP drew attention of this Court to the

         report submitted to the office of the Government Pleader

         by    the    concerned             Investigating             Officer        and      the      saidPage 3 of 6HC-NIC                                            Page 3 of 6      Created On Sun Aug 20 01:15:48 IST 2017
                 R/CR.MA/15118/2010                                                   JUDGMENT



         report reflects the status of medical certificate which

         indicates that the medical certificate does not reflect

         any visible marks of injury insofar as the complainant is

         concerned and so far as witness Ravindra Ramsevak Pal is

         concerned, the only complaint of chest pain is reported.


         3.1           The report also indicates that several offences

         are     registered               against          applicant             No.2-Dharampal

         Shrivastav and in one of the cases, the High Court has

         stayed investigation whereas in another case, reported

         under Part-II, charge sheet is filed.4.            Learned        Advocate for respondent No.2-original

         complainant,        relying        upon     the       affidavit          filed       by     the

         complainant,         drew        attention           of    this        Court        to      the

         antecedents of applicant No.2-Dharampal Shrivastav.                                             He

         drew attention of this Court to one such FIR and other

         complaints to the police authorities.4.1           Learned            Advocate            for       respondent                No.2-

         complainant submitted that the allegations made in the

         FIR are sufficient to attract ingredients of the offence

         and therefore, investigation is necessary and may not be

         closed at the threshold.5.            Having heard learned Advocate for the parties

         and having gone through the case papers, it appears that

         the   complainant           is   admittedly directly related to twoPage 4 of 6HC-NIC                                       Page 4 of 6       Created On Sun Aug 20 01:15:48 IST 2017
                 R/CR.MA/15118/2010                                                        JUDGMENT



         Bhadoriya       brothers,          with              whom       applicant            No.1        had

         altercation         on      previous           occasion             and       against          whom

         applicant No.1 has filed an FIR just two days prior to

         the present FIR.5.1           The        record         also          reflects            that        Bhadoriya

         brothers are notorious criminals, against whom several

         offences have been registered and charge sheeted.


         5.2           A perusal of the FIR indicates that the entire

         narration      of    incident of 06.12.2010 does not indicate

         even   presence          of    applicant             No.1       and      therefore,            only

         inference       that        can   be      drawn         is      that       implication               of

         applicant No.1, despite there being no role, is only with

         a   view   to     overcome        the        FIR        filed       by     applicant           No.1

         against two Bhadoriya brothers.5.3           This Court has also taken into consideration

         the    application            filed       by         the      sole       witness-Ravindra

         Ramsevak Pal to the police authorities to indicate that

         he has been wrongly named as a witness.                                          He has also

         stated that he was actually not the witness and not even

         present when the alleged incident took place.                                           However,

         with some oblique motive, he has been named as a witness

         in this FIR.5.4           This Court has also taken into consideration

         the document on page - 173, 174 and 175, which indicatesPage 5 of 6HC-NIC                                          Page 5 of 6         Created On Sun Aug 20 01:15:48 IST 2017
                    R/CR.MA/15118/2010                                                 JUDGMENT



         that from 2007 to 2011, respondent No.2 has filed not

         less than 33 complaints against various persons, so as to

         indicate that respondent No.2 is habitual in filing one

         complaint or the other.                     Therefore, it can be inferred

         that the present FIR is also outcome of one such figment

         of        imagination          without         there        being          any        factual

         background.6.               In view of the aforesaid, FIR being CR No.I-262

         of   2010       registered        with       Meghaninagar            Police         Station,

         Ahmedabad, which does not reflect commission of offence,

         on    the       contrary         which       reflects          false         implication,

         unsupported          with      any medical evidence, deserves to be

         quashed.             The       same   is       accordingly            quashed.               The

         application is allowed.                 Rule is made absolute.(A.Y. KOGJE, J.)
         SHITOLEPage 6 of 6HC-NIC                                         Page 6 of 6      Created On Sun Aug 20 01:15:48 IST 2017