RAMESHBHAI DALSUKHBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Criminal Misc.Applicatiion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicants herein ­ original accused to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R.No.II-39 of 2011 registered with Changodar Police Station lodged by respondent No.2 herein ­ original complainant for the offences punishable Sections 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.2 herein ­ original complainant, who was serving under the applicants, had lodged the impugned FIR on 08/04/2011 for the offences alleged to have been committed on 01/04/2011 against the applicants herein for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 with Changodar Police Station alleging inter alia that her husband was also serving in the said company in Packaging Department, however, he came to be dismissed from the service on 17/03/2011 and thereafter she was transferred from one Department to another Department by the applicants. Therefore, when she went to make the grievance, the applicants abused her by her caste and gave threats and, therefore, it is alleged that the applicants have committed offences as alleged. It is also required to be noted at this stage that in the impugned FIR itself, the complainant has specifically mentioned that she made one complaint to the concerned Police Station on 01/04/2011 and tried to see that the dispute is resolved, however, she and her husband were not taken back on duties, the impugned FIR has been filed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned FIR, the applicants herein ­ original accused have preferred the present application u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) MR .K.L.Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the respondent -State and has produced on record entire investigation papers for the perusal of the Court inclusive of the earlier complaint made by the complainant dated 01/04/2011 as well as subsequent statement of the complainant as recorded on 02/04/2011. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to satisfy the Court from any material and evidence on record, from which, it can be said that the applicants have committed the offences as alleged.