THAKAR ARVINDBHAI DASHRATHLAL vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR

This application is being filed by the petitioner

challenging the lodging of an FIR against him. Against

the petitioner, I.CR No. 74 of 2012 has been

registered on 18.05.2012 at Langhnaj Police Station.

The complaint is annexed at annexure-A to the

petition. Section 147, 148, 149, 504, 507 and 506(1)

have been invoked by the complainant, respondent No.2

herein. According to the complaint, the complainant is

a journalist publishing a newspaper. That he is also a

mahant of one Chehar Dham Shakti Pith, Modipur.

According to him, on 17.05.2012, when he was

proceeding in his Honda City Car from Mehsana to

Modipur at 11 in the morning, he was intercepted by a

Qualis which was coming from Ambasan. His car was

stopped. 8 to 10 people got down from the Qualis with

hockey sticks and base ball bats, broke the window

glass of his car and assaulted him. They took away

cash of Rs.5,000/ and a gold chain worth Rs.60,000/

The complaint further recites that the accosters were

aged 25 to 45 years.

According to the complainant, he suspected the

hand of the petitioner Ashok Thakore, who was a

resident of Mehsana. The version of the complainant is

that he owed large sums of money to the complainant

and therefore he suspected that it was the petitioner

who was behind the attack.

This in the nutshell is the narrative of the

complaint.

Shri N D Nanavati, learned Senior advocate has

appeared with Ms Neeta Panchal, for the applicant.

Having taken me through the First Information Report,

it is his case that the title of the First Information

itself suggest that the complaint has been lodged on a

mere suspicion. The title shows the name of the

petitioner and bears the turn "suspect". Even in the

body of the complaint, the only allegation is that he

suspects the petitioner behind the attack.

Sections invoked in the First Information Report

are sections 397, 395 and 341 of the Indian Penal

Code. The other sections invoked are 147, 148, 149. Mr

Nanavati, points out that no role is attributed to the

applicant/petitioner except based on suspicion. Had it

been a case, otherwise, sections 114/34 and/ or

section 120?B would have been invoked against the

applicant. In absence of such invocation, the

complaint on its bare reading discloses no offence,

and therefore, deserves to be quashed.

Mr Chintan Dave, learned APP has produced on

record a summary of the investigation carried out by

the police authorities to contend that the needle of

suspicion strongly points against the petitioner.

According to Mr Dave, there is sufficient material to

implicate the petitioner and therefore merely because

the provisions of section 114 / 34 or 120-B have not

been invoked would not give the benefit to the

petitioner.

Mr I M Pandya, learned advocate, submitted that

there is substantial material to implicate the

applicant, petitioner. He has relied on the affidavit

in reply filed by him to contend that once the

anticipatory bail application that he has filed was

rejected and the fact that he could get relief only

before the Supreme Court, shows that though he was a

mere suspect, at the stage of an application under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no

benefit be given to the petitioner.

Having heard learned advocates for the parties,

it is evident that the reading of the complaint only

shows that the complainant suspects the original

petitioner. The language of the First Information

Report shows that the applicant was shown as

"suspect". Mr Chintan Dave, learned APPs contention

supported by the arguments of Shri I M Pandya, at best

would suggest that the petitioner''s role could be one

of being the man instrumental in the attack. Even if

it be so, from the perusal of the charge sheet papers,

if one were to conclude such association of the

applicant, the First Information Report does not

invoke the provisions of Section 114 of Section 34 or

Section 120 B of the IPC, so as to enable the

complicity of the petitioner-applicant. There is

therefore force in the submission of learned advocate

Shri Nanavati that, the First Information Report as it

is does not make out a case for continuance of

investigation on the present material and the FIR as

it stands against the applicant.

Accordingly, the Special Criminal Application is

allowed. FIR being I.CR No. 74 of 2012 lodged before the

Langhnaj Police Station is quashed and set aside. Rule is

made absolute to the above extent.