Gujarat High Court
Ramanlal Dahyabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 21 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 5207 of 2022
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 5207 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAMANLAL DAHYABHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SACHIN D VASAVADA(3342) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS. ALKA B VANIYA(6945) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 21/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Rule, fixed forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent – State.
2. The applicants have preferred the present application
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
seeking quashing of the FIR being C.R. No. 11191027220283
registered with Karanj Police Station, Ahmedabad, on
22.02.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 506(2),
Page 1 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
294(b) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(Atrocity Act).
3. Relevant facts as narrated in the FIR, translated in
verbatim, are that:
“My name is Manubhai Bothabhai Solanki, aged 65 years,
occupation: workers’ leader, residing at C/72, Ankur
Society Part-II, National Highway No. 1, Saijpur Bogha,
Ahmedabad. Mobile No.: 9913177866. I state that I reside
at the aforesaid address with my family and earn my
livelihood by stitching clothes at my residence. At
Continental Mill, Naroda, approximately 2,700 workers are
employed. There are eight workers’ leaders representing
the workmen, and I am one of them. In connection with
resolving the financial dues and other grievances of the
workers, I frequently visit the office of Majur Mahajan
Sangh situated at Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad. Previously, I
had submitted an application regarding a shop situated at
Pankor Naka belonging to the co-operative society of
Majur Mahajan Sangh, alleging that the said shop had
been sold by the President, in connivance with other
members, without obtaining prior permission from the
Registrar. On 22.02.2022, at about 1:00 p.m., I had gone
to the office of Majur Mahajan Sangh at Lal Darwaja. After
completing my work, while I was leaving the office at about
2:00 p.m. and was standing in the lobby of the Majur
Mahajan Sangh building, the committee members of
Continental Mill, namely, Mohan Singh, Beekabhai Tomar
and Prem Shankarbhai Neta, met me. We stopped there
and were talking to each other. At that time, the President
of Majur Mahajan Sangh, Ramanlal Dahyabhai Patel,
came near me and asked, “Why have you given anPage 2 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
application against me to the police?” Thereafter, he
became angry and addressed me by uttering the words
“sālā ḍheḍā”, a caste-based derogatory slur, and also
abused me in filthy language before leaving the place.
Thereafter, the Secretary of Majur Mahajan Sangh,
Amarbhai and Barot, and one Zaverbhai Ramji Desai
came out of their office. Amarbhai and Barot abused me
with reference to my caste and stated “sālā ḍheḍā”,
should be removed from the Mandali. Zaverbhai Ramji
Desai, who was standing beside him, further told the
Security person that this Scheduled Caste person should
not be allowed to enter the office. They also threatened to
kill me. On account of the aforesaid incident, I immediately
called the police on emergency number 100. Upon the
arrival of the police, I was taken to Karanj Police Station,
where I lodged the present complaint. The witnesses to the
incident are Mohan Singh, Beekabhai Tomar, Prem
Shankarbhai Neta, and such other witnesses as may
surface during the course of the investigation.
The facts stated herein above are true and correct. I have
received a copy of this complaint. The complaint has been
read over and explained to me, and after having
understood its contents, I have signed the same.”
3.1 It is against this FIR that the applicants are before this
Court by of present application praying for quashing of the said
FIR.
4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. I. Nanavati for the
applicant submitted that respondent No. 2 is the worker of
Continental Mills under Liquidation and used to misuse the
criminal machinery and to file criminal complaints against the
applicants herein. It is submitted that in the past, the respondent
Page 3 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
No. 2 had lodged an FIR against the applicant No. 1 herein.
However, since the allegations levelled against him were
absolutely bald, vague and baseless, the applicant No. 1 got
clean acquittal. It is submitted that in the present FIR, the
respondent No. 2 herein has levelled allegation in same nature,
only with a view to harass the applicants herein. It is further
submitted that upon bare perusal of the FIR, it does not reflect
commission of any offence as alleged as per Section 506(2),
294(b), 114 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) 3(2)(va) of Atrocity
Act. It is stated that the allegations levelled in the FIR are bald
and no ingredients of the offence alleged against the present
applicant in the FIR in question are satisfied and the present FIR
is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the respondent
No. 2 has been giving criminal colour to the dispute which is
absolutely civil in nature.
4.1 It is stated that the respondent No. 2 was ex worker of the
Continental Mills, whose case is still pending for adjudication
before the Delhi High Court for getting the unpaid dues from the
said Mills in liquidation. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2
used to visit Majur Mahajan Sangh to inquire about pending
proceedings at the Delhi High Court. However, for the reasons
known to the respondent No. 2, all of a sudden, he filed a
complaint before the Registrar making baseless allegation,
without any substance, against the applicants with regard to sale
of one shop.
Page 4 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
4.2 It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2 used to
visit the office of the applicants and used to inquire about the
constitution of TLA / Majur Mahajan Sangh and used to inquire
about various other proceedings pending before this Court and
the Delhi High Court. It is submitted that the applicants as well
as all committee members used to cooperate with the
respondent No. 2 herein. However, the respondent No. 2 used
to raise the issues which were not relevant and germane and
used to lodge complaint to the police. Therefore, the applicants
herein, in the year 2019 and 2021, also informed the respondent
No. 1 in advance about ill actions of the respondent No. 2
herein.
4.3 It is submitted that on 22.02.2022, the respondent No. 2,
as per his routine visit to office at Majur Mahajan Sangh / TLA,
inquired about his cases before the committee members and to
the other workers who were also present at that time. It is
submitted that since it was recess time, the applicants were
leaving their offices due to lunch time. At that time, there was no
discussion between the applicants and respondent No. 2, the
respondent No. 2, for the reasons best known to him, went to
Karanj Police Station and lodge an FIR against the present
applicants narrating the so-called incident which had never
taken place. It is submitted that on becoming aware about the
police complaint, filed by the respondent No. 2 herein, invoking
the provisions of IPC and the Atrocity Act, the committee
Page 5 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
members and other workers who were present at that time, also
informed the police by way of a letter in writing that such type of
incident had never happened.
4.4 That the allegations levelled against the applicants are
vague, bald and without there being any iota of evidence to
prove the same. Thus, it is reiterated that no ingredients are
satisfied for the alleged office in the FIR under Sections 506(2),
294(b) and 114 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of
the Atrocity Act and therefore, the present FIR deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
4.5 The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the applicants
have been, for the last more than 50 years, following the
Gandhian principles and have devoted entire life for betterment
of more than 70000 workers / members who lost their jobs due
to closure of Mills and could not recover their legitimate dues
and thus, the applicants espoused the cause for the benefit of all
workers including the workers of the Continental Mills and
recovered almost entire dues from the office of Official
Liquidator.
4.6 It is further submitted that respondent No. 2 was a worker
of Continental Mills and the disputes with regard to Continental
Mills are being adjudicated by the Delhi High Court and due to
Covid-19 only extreme urgent matters were being taken up by
Page 6 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
the Delhi High Court and therefore, the respondent No. 2 is filing
various complaints against the office bearers though the
applicants have been successfully getting all the dues of most of
the workers by espousing their cause in the Courts of Law.
4.7 Moreover, it is submitted that the respondent No. 2 is not
even a member and never authorized by the workers of the
concerned Mill and therefore, also he is not aware about the
pendency of the proceedings with regard to recovery of workers’
dues from the Liquidator of Continental Mills at the Delhi High
Court and therefore, to adopt the pressure tactics, the
respondent No. 2 has invoked Criminal jurisdiction including the
provisions of the Atrocity Act and therefore, the allegations
levelled in FIR are vague, hopeless and that, such an incident,
as alleged in FIR, never took place.
4.8 That the applicants have been protecting the interest of
more than 70000 workers of closed Mills including present
respondent No. 2, however, the respondent No. 2, for no reason,
has been abusing and misusing the process of law and has
been filing such complaints after complaints against the
applicants though the other workers and other committee
members have no complaint, at all, against the present
applicants.
4.9 The learned Senior Counsel for the applicants would
Page 7 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
submit that the respondent No. 2 is habitual in filing complaints
after complaints before the Police and thereby, abusing the
process of law and unnecessarily harassing the applicants
herein.
4.10 That the allegations in the FIR are nothing but to give the
colour of criminal to the civil proceedings as he has lodge one
civil complaint before the Registrar, Cooperative Society and
said proceedings are still going on by the Registrar, Cooperative
societies and the same is sub-judice before the concerned
authority as the Registrar, Cooperative society has been doing
the inquiry as per the provisions of law.
4.11 It is submitted that the respondent No. 1, before lodging an
FIR, ought to have considered the representation of the other
workers / members who were present in the premises of Majur
Mahajan Sangh and admitted that such alleged incidence had
not happened and ought not to have accepted the report of first
informant.
4.12 That in the past, the respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR
invoking criminal provisions against the applicant No. 2 and the
applicant No. 2 got clean acquittal as the respondent No. 2 could
not prove the baseless and bald allegations levelled in the FIR
and therefore, also the present FIR, deserves to be quashed
and set aside as the same is also vague, bald, baseless and the
Page 8 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
first informant is habitually misusing and abusing the criminal
provisions by invoking the same only with a view to harass the
applicants and therefore, it is urged that the present FIR may be
quashed.
5. As against that, learned advocate Ms. Alka B. Vaniya and
the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
original complainant and the State, respectively, submitted that
the complainant had addressed an application to the Hon’ble
Chief Minister of Gujarat alleging that a property worth several
crores of rupees had been illegally sold in favour of one
Nazirjaan Amanullah Khan Pathan on the basis of a Power of
Attorney executed on a Rs.100/- stamp paper. It was alleged
that the Power of Attorney had been executed by Ramanbhai
Patel, Pankaj Madhusudan Joshi, Chanduji Khanaji Thakor and
Hasmukh Thakkar in favour of Jaish Hasmukhlal Pandya,
pursuant to which possession of the property was handed over
after accepting consideration of Rs.68,00,000/-. It was further
submitted that the said application was also forwarded to the
Police Inspector, Karanj Police Station, the Police
Commissioner, the Deputy Inspector General of Police as well
as the Home Minister, State of Gujarat. According to the learned
advocate, the present applicant No. 1 had attempted to
pressurize the complainant to withdraw the aforesaid application
and after his refusal, present FIR came to be lodged. It was,
therefore, contended that the FIR cannot be said to be false or
Page 9 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
baseless.
5.1 Learned advocates would further submit that the
complainant is also a shareholder of Majur Mahajan Sangh
Khadi Co-operative Society Limited and, therefore, has a direct
interest in safeguarding the dues of the workers, which is the
subject matter of adjudication. Having noticed the alleged
illegalities, the complainant had preferred aforesaid application
dated 07.12.2021. It was submitted that, when the complainant
visited the office of Majur Mahajan Sangh on 22.02.2022, he
was threatened and pressurized to withdraw the said
application, which ultimately led to the lodging of the present
FIR. It was further submitted that Mohan Singh Tomar and
Vasant Premshankarbhai Neta had witnessed the alleged
incident and, therefore, the present application deserves to be
rejected.
6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
6.1 At the outset, the necessary ingredients for attracting
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are required to
be examined in light of the settled legal principles. To attract the
provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocity Act, the
insult, intimidation or hurling of caste-based abuses must take
Page 10 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
place “in any place within public view.” In this regard,
reference to a decision of the Apex Court in Swaran Singh v.
State, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435, as referred to in Gunjan
alias Girija Kumari and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 834, is apposite. It has been
held therein that even if the offending remarks are made inside a
building, the offence would still fall within the ambit of the
aforesaid provisions if the incident is witnessed by members of
the public, and not merely by relatives or close friends, thereby
satisfying the requirement of “public view.”
6.2 In the case Gunjan alias Girija Kumari (supra), the Apex
Court has held that:
“5.1 Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act read as
under,“3. Punishments for offences atrocities.– 3(1)
Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe,–
(a) to (q) ………..
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within
public view;”
5.1.1 The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST
Page 11 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
Act can be said to have been committed when a
person not belonging to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates
with an intent to humiliate a person belonging to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place
within public view. Offence under Section 3(1)(s) of
the SC/ST Act is made out when any member of the
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is abused by
caste name in any place within public view.
5.2 The ingredients of the offences are that there has to
be an intentional insult or intimidation which has to be with
an intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe or that such member of Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe is abused by caste name by a person
who does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe. The common essential for constituting the offence
under both the Sections is that the insult or intimidation
under sub-clause (r) or hurling of abuses under sub-clause
(s) have taken place “in any place within public view”.
5.3 All the appellants are framed for the offence under
Section 506 read with Section 34, IPC. Section 506, IPC is
about punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation
whereas the offence of criminal intimidation is defined in
Section 503, IPC. It says that whoever threatens another
with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to
the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is
interested, and when the same is done with an intent to
cause alarm to that person, commits criminal intimidation.
Section 34, IPC speaks about the acts done by several
persons in furtherance of common intention.
5.4 Before examining the sustainability of the charge
framed and the charge-sheet for its details and contents in
respect of the aforesaid offences under Sections 3(1)(r)
and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, it would be useful to survey
few decisions of this Court which have explained the scope
and purport of the phrase “in any place within public view”
Page 12 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
pinpointing that the said requirement is indispensable to be
fulfilled in order that the offence under the SC/ST Act is
constituted.
5.5 In Swaran Singh v. State through Standing Counsel,
the place where the informant was insulted by the
appellant by calling him ‘chamar’ was one where he had
been standing near the car which was parked at the gate
of the premises of his employer. This Court held that such
place was “a place within public view”. The argument that
the alleged act was not committed in a public place and
hence did not come within the purview of the offence under
the SC/ST Act was negatived by explaining a fine
distinction between the expression ‘in any place within
public view’ as used in the provision and the expression
‘public place’.
5.5.1 It was stated that the expression ‘a place within
public view’ could not be confused with the
expression ‘public place’. It was highlighted that a
place can be a private place yet can be within public
view,“….It could have been a different matter had the
alleged offence been committed inside a building,
and also was not in the public view. However, if the
offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a
lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by
someone from the road or lane outside the boundary
wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the
public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public are there
(not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be
an offence since it is in the public view….”
(Para 28)
5.6 Swaran Singh (supra) came to be relied on by this
Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand in respect of
the concept of ‘place within public view’ as an ingredient of
Page 13 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
the offence. The very observations in Swaran Singh
(supra) were reiterated in paragraph 14 in Hitesh Verma
(supra) when the Court noticed the allegations in the FIR
about abusing the informant. It was stated in the FIR that
the incident of abuse happened within the four walls of the
building of the informant, and it was not the case of the
informant that any member of the public was present at the
time of the incident in the house. The Court, therefore,
ruled that the basic requirement that the abusive words
were uttered in ‘a place within public view’ was not made
out. It was further noticed that witnesses whose names
were appended to the chargesheet were not the persons
present within the four walls of the building.
5.7 In a more recent decision in Karuppudayar v. State
represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Lalgudi Trichy, this Court considered its own decisions in
Swaran Singh (supra) as well as Hitesh Verma (supra),
and elucidated an ironed-out proposition of law as under,
“It could thus be seen that, to be a place ‘within public
view’, the place should be open where the members of the
public can witness or hear the utterance made by the
accused to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place
within the four corners of the wall where members of the
public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has
taken place at a place within public view.”
(Para 11)
5.7.1 The Court observed that even by taking the
allegations in the FIR at their face value, what was
alleged was that when the complainant was in the
office, the accused came there, made inquiries from
the complainant and upon not being satisfied, started
abusing the complainant in the name of his caste and
insulted him. Thereafter, three colleagues of the
complainant came later to pacify the accused and
took him away. The Court thus noticed that the
incident had taken place within the four corners of
the chambers of the complainant, which was not “a
Page 14 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
place within public view”.
5.8 A decision of the Karnataka High Court in Sri Rithesh
Pais v. State of Karnataka, by Puttur Town P.S. may also
be noticed to be relevant, in which the offence was held to
be not made out as the chargesheet material showed that
the hurling of the abuses had happened in the basement
and within the walls of the basement, holding that the
basement of the building was not “a place within public
view”.
5.9 A conclusive statement of law that emanates from
the ratio of the decisions of this Court discussed above is
that in order to make out the offence under Section 3(1)(r)
and/or Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the occurrence of
the incident and the act and conduct of hurling of caste-
based abuses must take place at “a place within public
view”. It must be a place within the public gaze. Even
happens to be a private place, then in such eventuality a
public-eye must have an access to be able to notice what
happens there or what is taking place that will only make
the “place within public view”.”
6.3 If the allegations in the present case are tested on
touchstone of afore stated principles, what emerges from the
complaint is that, while the complainant was standing in the
lobby of the office building of Majur Mahajan Sangh along with
Mohan Singh Tomar and Vasant Premshankarbhai Neta and
was engaged in conversation with them, applicant No. 1
approached him and questioned as to why he had submitted an
application against him before the police authorities. It is further
alleged that applicant No.1 thereafter, became agitated, uttered
the alleged caste-based slur, abused the complainant in filthy
Page 15 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
language and left the place. Thereafter, Amarbhai Barot and
Zaverbhai Desai are stated to have approached at the place of
incident and they also committed offence as stated in the FIR.
6.4 It is required to be noted that, except for the two alleged
eye-witnesses, namely Mohan Singh Tomar and Vasant
Premshankarbhai Neta, no independent witness to the alleged
incident has been cited. It also appears that both the aforesaid
witnesses are members of the Committee of Continental Mills
and are admittedly known to the complainant.
6.5 It further transpires from the record that Mohan Singh
Tomar was also cited as a prosecution witness in Sessions
Case (Atrocity) No. Atro/3/2012 arising out of earlier FIR lodged
by the present complainant against applicant No. 1 and one
Pankaj Madhusudan Joshi. By judgment and order dated
24.02.2014, the accused therein came to be acquitted, inter alia,
on the ground that the complainant himself, during the course of
his cross-examination, did not support the case of the
prosecution. Thus, one common thread running through both the
proceedings is that Mohan Singh Tomar is a common witness,
who had also turned hostile before the Sessions Court in the
earlier Atrocity case.
6.6 Be that as it may, it further appears that, on 29.01.2019, a
representation came to be addressed to the Police Inspector,
Page 16 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
Karanj Police Station, Ahmedabad, by Ramanlal Patel,
Amarbhai Barot, Mahendrabhai Desai and Madhubhai Parmar,
wherein the present applicant Nos. 1 and 2, in their capacity as
Secretaries, had also signed the said representation. The said
representation is placed on record at Annexure “E” and has not
been controverted by the complainant, inter alia, recording that
the complainant had threatened to implicate several persons by
lodging false FIRs if action was not initiated against Waghela.
6.7 It is also required to be noted that on 23.02.2022 i.e.
immediately on the next day after the registration of the
impugned FIR, several representatives, including members
belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
communities, submitted a representation to the Police Inspector,
Karanj Police Station. In the said representation, it was
specifically alleged that the FIR dated 22.02.2022 was a got-up
complaint and that the complainant was in the habit of making
false allegations and lodging bogus complaints under the
Atrocity Act. It was further stated that Majur Mahajan Sangh has
never believed in or practised any discrimination on the basis of
caste or religion and that the complaint lodged by Manubhai
Bothabhai Solanki was false and deserved to be rejected.
6.8 In the present case, it is alleged that all the three
applicants used caste-based slurs against the complainant while
two persons, namely Mohan Singh Tomar and Vasant
Premshankarbhai Neta, who are stated to be
Page 17 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
friends/acquaintances of respondent No. 2 – Complainant, were
present in the balcony of the office of Majur Mahajan Sangh.
The expression “within public view” contemplates a place
which is capable of being viewed by members of the public and
where the occurrence is visible to persons having access
thereto. Mere presence of two friends or acquaintances of the
complainant would not, by itself, satisfy the statutory
requirement of an incident having occurred “within public view.”
Except for the presence of the aforesaid two witnesses, there is
nothing on record to indicate that the alleged incident was
witnessed by any member of the public. Even if the allegations
contained in the FIR are accepted as they stand, it cannot be
said that the incident had taken place within public view so as to
attract the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act.
6.9 One of the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants is
that the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed as it is
manifestly frivolous, vexatious and instituted with an ulterior
motive to wreak vengeance. In such circumstances, this Court is
duty-bound to scrutinize the allegations in the FIR with a greater
care. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Salib @ Shalu @
Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, reported in (2023)
20 SCC 194 held that:
“26. At this stage, we would like to observe something
Page 18 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the
ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a
duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
We say so because once the complainant decides to
proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for
wreaking personal vengeance, etc. then he would ensure
that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the
necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that
the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that
they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the
Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint
alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are
disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the
Court owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The
Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict
itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take
into account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials
collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance
the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over
a period of time. It is in the background of such
circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes
importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking
vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.”
6.10 In the facts of the present case, it transpires that way back
Page 19 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
in the year 2019, the office-bearers, including the President and
Secretary of Majur Mahajan Sangh, had addressed a
representation dated 29.01.2019 to the Police Inspector, Karanj
Police Station, alleging that the present complainant was
exerting pressure upon them to lodge an FIR against one Shri
Waghela. It further emerges from the record that the
complainant had earlier instituted proceedings under the Atrocity
Act, which ultimately culminated in acquittal in the Sessions
Case. Significantly, Mohan Singh Tomar, who is projected as an
eyewitness in the present FIR, was also a witness in the earlier
proceedings.
6.11 Further, on the very next day of the alleged incident i.e. on
23.02.2022, representatives of Majur Mahajan Sangh submitted
representations to the authorities stating that the present
complainant was in the habit of lodging false complaints. Along
with the said representation, copies of the earlier representation
dated 29.01.2019 as well as another representation dated
12.11.2021 were annexed, reiterating similar allegations
regarding the conduct of the complainant.
6.12 While considering a prayer for quashing, this Court is not
required to confine itself merely to the bare allegations contained
in the FIR, but is also entitled to take into consideration the
attendant circumstances leading to the institution of the criminal
proceedings. Upon considering the surrounding circumstances
Page 20 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
emerging from the record, it clearly appears that the impugned
FIR has been lodged as a pressure tactic with a view to compel
registration of an FIR against Shri Waghela, which the
complainant had been unsuccessfully attempting since the year
2019. Having failed in the earlier proceedings under the Atrocity
Act, which culminated in acquittal, the complainant appears to
have resorted to lodging the present FIR.
6.13 Another glaring circumstance which casts serious doubt
upon the prosecution case is the sequence of events narrated in
the complaint itself. According to the complainant, while he was
standing in the lobby of the office of Majur Mahajan Sangh along
with his two friends, applicant No. 1 came there, abused him by
using caste-based slurs, threatened him and thereafter returned
to his office. It is further alleged that after some time applicant
Nos. 2 and 3 also came to the spot and similarly abused and
threatened the complainant.
6.14 The aforesaid version does not inspire confidence.
Ordinarily, if a person is subjected to caste-based abuses and
criminal intimidation, one would expect an immediate reaction.
However, according to the complainant’s own version, he neither
reacted nor left the place, but continued conversing with his
friends until applicant Nos. 2 and 3 allegedly arrived after some
time and repeated the same acts without any apparent reason.
Such conduct appears highly improbable and unnatural.
Page 21 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
6.15 This circumstance assumes greater significance in light of
the earlier representations dated 29.01.2019, 12.11.2021, and
23.02.2022, which consistently alleged that the complainant was
in the habit of initiating proceedings under the Atrocities Act. The
earlier acquittal in the Sessions Case further lends support to
the contention raised by the applicants regarding the misuse of
the provisions of the Act.
6.16 In the case of Konde Nageshwar Rao v. A. Srirama Chandra
Murty and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1499 observed as follows:
“23. In Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of
Maharashtra, this Court has emphasized that merely because
the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes cannot be the sole ground for prosecution. The offences
alleged must have been committed solely on the basis of the
victim’s caste status. Misuse of the statute to settle personal
scores or to harass individuals cannot be permitted if it is
apparent. The Court should in such situation be not hesitant to
step in and stop the said misuse. Prosecution needs to be
quashed at an early stage to prevent undue harassment of the
accused where there is clear legal infirmity in the prosecution
case, such as the allegations, even if taken at their face value,
do not disclose an offence or the entire case is a bad faith
exercise weaponized to settle personal scores, rather than
seeking justice (Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh‘).
24. This Court in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of
Maharashtra had also observed that there has been an
alarming increase in false complaints under the SC/ST Act,
particularly against public servants and judicial officers with anPage 22 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
oblique motive to settle personal scores or to harass individuals.
Such acts cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and need to be
stopped at the very outset so that there is no miscarriage of
justice.”
6.17 The salutary object of the Atrocity Act is to protect the
members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from
genuine acts of discrimination and atrocities. However, where
the material on record unmistakably indicates that the provisions
of the Act have been invoked as a means of exerting pressure to
achieve an ulterior purpose, continuation of the criminal
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
6.18 So far as invocation of Sections 506(2) and 294(b) r/w.
Section 114 of the IPC are concerned:
6.18.1 In Vikram Johar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others, MANU/SC/0608/2019 : (2019) 14 SCC 207, it is
observed as under:
“24. In another judgment, i.e., Manik Taneja and Another
Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, MANU/SC/0056/2015
: (2015) 7 SCC 423, this Court has again occasion to
examine the ingredients of Sections 503 and 506. In the
above case also, case was registered for the offence
under Sections 353 and 506 I.P.C. After noticing Section
503, which defines criminal intimidation, this Court laid
down following in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12:-
“11. Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
A reading of the definition of “criminal intimidation”
Page 23 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
would indicate that there must be an act of
threatening to another person, of causing an injury to
the person, reputation, or property of the person
threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened
person is interested and the threat must be with the
intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it
must be to do any act which he is not legally bound
to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled
to do.
12. In the instant case, the allegation is that the
appellants have abused the complainant and
obstructed the second respondent from discharging
his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the
second respondent. It is the intention of the accused
that has to be considered in deciding as to whether
what he has stated comes within the meaning of
“criminal intimidation”. The threat must be with
intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause
that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere
expression of any words without any intention to
cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the
application of this section. But material has to be
placed on record to show that the intention is to
cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and
circumstances of the case, it appears that there was
no intention on the part of the appellants to cause
alarm in the mind of the second respondent causing
obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the
comments posted on Facebook are concerned, it
appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the
public and the act of the appellants posting a
comment on Facebook may not attract ingredients of
criminal intimidation in Section 503 Indian Penal
Code.”
27. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence
of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona
Shrikhande (supra) has also to be applied when question
Page 24 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are
made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant
abused the complainant. For proving an offence under
Section 506 IPC, what are ingredients which have to be
proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of
Crimes, 27th Edition with regard to proof of offence states
following: –
“…The prosecution must prove:
(i) That the accused threatened some person.
(ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his
person, reputation or property; or to the person,
reputation or property of some one in whom he was
interested;
(iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that
person; or to cause that person to do any act which
he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act
which he was legally entitled to do as a means of
avoiding the execution of such threat.” A plain
reading of the allegations in the complaint does not
satisfy all the ingredients as noticed above.”
6.18.2 In Mohammad Wajid and Another v. State of U.P.
& Others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624, it is held as under:
“27. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it
clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before
an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be
established that the accused had an intention to cause
alarm to the complainant.”
6.18.3 Thus, in order to make out an offence of Criminal
Intimidation, punishable under Section 506(2) of the IPC, that it
Page 25 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
must be established that the accused had an intention to cause
alarm to the complainant and that, mere threats given by the
accused, without any intention to cause alarm to the
complainant, would not constitute the offence of Criminal
Intimidation. The said basic ingredients and predominant
requirement to establish or to constitute an offence punishable
under Section 506(2) of the IPC regarding intention to cause
alarm to the complainant is conspicuously absent in the present
case.
6.19 So far as offence punishable under Section 294(b) of the
IPC is concerned, it would be relevant to refer to such Section,
which is as under:
“294. Obscene acts and songs.–Whoever, to the
annoyance of others,
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song,
ballad or words, in or near any public place,shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three
months, or with fine, or with both.]”
6.19.1 Thus, to attract the ingredients of offence under
Section 294(b) IPC, utterance of any ballad or words, in or near
any public place, is must. In the instant case, when the veracity
of the FIR in question itself is doubtful, as discussed herein
Page 26 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/5207/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2026
undefined
above, and when the ingredients of the offence under the
Atrocity Act are not satisfied, in the considered opinion of the
Court, the provisions of this Section would also not be attracted
in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6.20 So far as invocation of Section 114 IPC is concerned,
when ingredients of the substantive offence are not satisfied,
this section shall not apply.
7. For the forgoing discussion and observations, this
application deserves to be allowed.
8. The application, therefore, succeeds and is, accordingly,
allowed. The FIR being C. R. No. 11191027220283 registered
with Karanj Police Station, Ahmedabad, on 22.02.2022 for the
offences punishable under Sections 506(2), 294(b) and 114 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and
3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is hereby quashed and set
aside, along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MOHD SAIF ULLAH
Page 27 of 27
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Jul 21 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 21 22:54:08 IST 2026
