DHARMESHBHAI KHUSHALBHAI KOLI PATEL And 1 Other(S) vs STATE OF GUJARAT And 1 Other(S)

At the outset, learned advocate Ms.Shah appearing for the applicants has submitted that she would not be pressing the present writ application for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the IPC").

The facts of the present case is that the complainant is working as recovery agent in Fox Business Solution Private Limited and he is the owner of the land situated in Village Salvav and the said land is running in his name and with a view to grab the possession of the said land, applicant No.1 - Dhansukhbhai Khushalbhai Koli Patel resident of Uadwada Retlav used to pick up quarrel with the first informant and for that he has given one application against him in Vapi Town Police Station on 05.06.2014. On 15.06.2014, alleging that when the complainant was going to his farm at about 5:30 p.m., both the accused persons had come near Bapa Sitaram Ashram and started abusing him and confronted him by stating that that why he has made the application against them in Vapi Town Police Station and, thereafter, both ofd them have assaulted him by kick and fist blows and upon shouting, one Vimalbhai Kikubhai intervened and rescued him from further beating and thereafter, the accused fled away and at that time they gave threat to kill him. Hence, the respondent No.2 has lodged the impugned F.I.R.

Learned advocate Ms.Shah appearing for the applicants has submitted that the offence is lodged against the applicants mainly keeping vengeance upon him and the applicant No.1 is not at all aware about the incident narrated in the F.I.R., which is alleged to have taken place on 15.06.2014 because at that time he was in his godown, which is situated half kilometer away from Village Salvav.

3.1 Learned advocate Ms.Shah has submitted that the respondent No.2 has implicated him in the present offence in collusion with Police Inspector, Shri Parmar of Vapi Town Police Station. The applicants are holding Revenue Survey No. 118/3 situated at Village Salvav since three years and he has also constructed compound wall and has kept sand, tar, bricks and other scrap. Some other persons namely Ishwar Aahir and Sanjay Manilal Patel wanted to use the said land by making encroachment and these persons are in collusion with Police Inspector, Shri Parmar of the Vapi Town Police Station and the applicants have been threatened by these persons along with other land grabbers so as to implicate him in the serious offences.

3.2 Learned advocate Ms.Shah has submitted that the respondent No.2 has filed the complaint by asserting the fact that he is the owner of some land in Village Salvav and with a view to grab the possession of the said land, the accused used to threaten him. However, it is clear that he has not given any description of the land and in fact, the land of which the reference is made, is an open land belonging to some Nayka Family, which is situated opposite to Bapa Sitaram Ashram and all the persons parked their vehicle upon the said land at the time of visit of the said Ashram and the land in question is a restricted tenure land and, therefore, the respondent No.2 being of Patel caste cannot be the owner and in possession of the land of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and to the best of the information available to the applicants, the respondent No.2 is not holding any land as asserted by him and as stated hereinabove, the applicants have been made scapegoat by wrongly implicating them in the offence alleged in the present F.I.R.

3.3 Learned advocate Ms.Shah has further submitted that so far as offence under Section 506(2) of the IPC is concerned, the same is not established. Hence, the impugned F.I.R. may be quashed and set aside.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Bhatt, on instructions of the Investigating Officer, who is present before this Court, has submitted that the investigation is over, however, charge-sheet is yet to be filed. She has submitted that the statement of the witness reveals that the incident was occurred, however, one witness, whose name figures in the impugned F.I.R. as Vimalbhai Kikubhai, has been recorded by the Investigating Officer, which reveals the complexity of the applicants for the offence. She has submitted that however, the investigation does not reveal any offence under Section 506 (2) of the IPC.

This Court has examined the papers of the investigation as well as the contents of the impugned F.I.R. In the impugned F.I.R., the respondent No.2 has referred to the altercation/scuffle between him and the applicants. It is specifically stated that while he was being assaulted by the applicants, on listening to the shouts, one Vimalbhai Kikubhai had come there and separated them and rescued him from such assault. The first informant has further alleged that after assaulting him and at the time leaving, the applicants have specifically threatened him that not today but on the next occasion, when they find him alone, they would kill him. The investigation does not reveal that the applicants have given such threat of killing to the first informant. The statement of Vimalbhai Kikubhai also does not assert that such threat was given by the applicants. It is pertinent to note that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged on 16.06.2014 for the offence, which has occurred on 15.06.2014. From the allegations mentioned in the impugned FIR, it is discernable that no alarm is caused to the first informant on being criminally intimidated. It is no more res integra that for establishing the offence of criminal intimidation, the ingredients of section 503 of IPC which defines the same are required to be satisfied. The quintessential feature of causing alarm has to be ascertained for establishing the definition of criminal intimidation.

Since the investigation does not reveal any complexity of the applicants as regards the offence under Section 506(2) of the IPC is concerned, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC is concerned, the same provides for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. The same is incorporated as under:

"504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

Thus, the quintessential feature for establishing the offence under Section 504 of the IPC is concerned that the intentional insult has to be of such degree capable of provoking the person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. Merely the conduct of the accused of abusing the complainant or assaulting the respondent No.2 would not be sufficient ground itself to constitute an offence under Section 504 of the IPC. The contents of the F.I.R. do not in any manner reveal that the ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC are satisfied in the present case. Hence, the impugned F.I.R. under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC is concerned, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

As regards the offence under Section 323 of the IPC is concerned, the present writ application is not pressed by the learned advocate Ms.Shah appearing for the applicants.