HARERAMBHAI PUNJABHAI CHAUHAN vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Heard learned advocates for the parties. In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

prayer is made to quash the criminal complaint qua present petitioner being C.R.No.I-164 of 2012 registered with Bhuj Taluka Police Station, Kutch, for the offence punishable under Section 454, 457, 380 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and the criminal case being Criminal Case No.5391 of 2013 pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Bhuj, which is registered pursuant to the aforesaid complaint.

Brief facts for deciding the case are as under:-

The petitioner, a Principal of Primary School at Bhuj was the original complainant, who lodged a complaint against unknown persons when at the end of vacation while reopening the school on 11.6.2012, he found grill of the window of the computer room broken and computer and stabilizer were not at the place and other computers were damaged. Later on when investigation commenced, one police constable, Dharamendrasinh Chauhan and other police personnel came to the house of the petitioner on 14.6.2012 and took him to the police station by saying that statement of the petitioner was to be recorded with regard to the offence and the petitioner was beaten mercilessly for which some evidence in the form of photographs is produced on the record, to which reference will be made later on. It is also a fact that the petitioner was hospitalized by the neighbours at G.K.General Hospital at Bhuj in unconscious condition and thereafter he was harassed by the police authority. The petitioner also lodged a complaint against the Dharamendrasinh Chauhan on 17.6.2012 being C.R. No.II-187 of 2012 registered with Bhuj City Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (10) of the Atrocity Act. Though

accused police constable was tried but due to lack of evidence and witnesses being police personnel of the same police station, who turned hostile or not supported the case of the prosecution, the trial resulted into acquittal. Against the acquittal, an appeal is preferred before this Court which came to be admitted and is pending for hearing.

In the backdrop of above facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned complaint is nothing but a retaliatory measure and counter-blast of the petitioner''s lodging a complaint against police personnel, who had beaten him mercilessly and that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case and, under no circumstances, being a Principal of primary school he would have thought of either committing theft of computer or damaging it. It is also submitted that barring footprint in the form of evidence, as contended by learned APP, no other evidence is available. If further proceedings are allowed to continue the petitioner would suffer rigmarole of trial and pendency of criminal case even would jeopardize his service prospect. In absence of any other criminal record and since the petitioner has unnecessarily become victim of the atrocities committed by the persons in power as hails from scheduled caste, the impugned complaint and the criminal case filed pursuant thereto be quashed, as prayed for.

Learned APP, however, would contend that in the matter of theft and other offences alleged, investigation is necessary and even order can be passed to investigate by any independent agency. At this stage, according to learned APP, this Court would not venture to thwart investigation which is

the domain of investigating agency. In absence of merit, the petition deserves to be rejected.

Having given thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and a careful perusal of the record reveal that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was Principal of Primary School and in possession of the key of the premises viz. the primary school and on completion of vacation he was the only person, who had unlocked the class rooms and there was no other earthly reason for him to make any attempt by breaking the grills of the window for which a false complaint could be registered. As the petitioner was present, entered into class room and the school premises, evidence of footprint cannot be said to be a credible evidence to come to the conclusion about his guilt. Besides evidence galore on record that the accused was mercilessly beaten for which treatment was taken at G.K.General Hospital, Bhuj, and papers pursuant to medical treatment and report reveal that the petitioner did receive severe bruises and remained in hospital for two days for the treatment.

Keeping in mind the principles and parameters of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a case is made out that the complaint against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law, who had ventilated the grievance against police personnel in accordance with law.

The case is of gross abuse by the police authority and time and again the petitioner was pressurized to withdraw the complaint filed against the constable, against whom criminal case was registered, which unfortunately resulted into

acquittal due to lack of evidence. On the ground that the impugned complaint and the charge sheet are nothing but an abuse of process of law and undue harassment to the petitioner and a case is made out to quash the same in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the impugned complaint being C.R.No.I-164 of 2012 registered with Bhuj Taluka Police Station, Kutch, for the offence punishable under Section 454, 457, 380 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and the criminal case being Criminal Case No.5391 of 2013 pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Bhuj, which is registered pursuant to the aforesaid complaint are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.