SURESH RAVJI SIROKHA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr.S. K. Patel on behalf of the applicants, learned APP Ms.Mehta for the respondent State and learned Advocate Mr.Kirtidev Dave appearing for the respondent No.2.

(2.) By way of this application, the applicants pray for quashing of the impugned FIR No.11205006200453 registered with Gadhsisa Police Station, District Kutch, West Bhuj on 13/9/2020 for the offences punishable under Ss. 365 , 328 , and 114 of IPC and Sec. 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989.

(3.) The allegation levelled in the FIR being that the complainant, who had disputes with regard to a property with the accused, had been abducted by the accused, first in a tractor and thereafter in a Swift Car and the complainant had been rendered unconscious upon he being made to sniff some material, which had been poured on a handkerchief. It is alleged in the complaint that once the complainant had regained consciousness, he had found himself at Junagadh and whereas he had gone to Bhavnath Police Station at Junagadh and had informed the incident to his brother as well as to the police officials of Gadhsisa Police Station. It appears that pursuant to the investigation, the Investigating Officer being the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SCST Cell at West Kutch, Bhuj has submitted a report before this Court on 1/12/2021, whereby it is informed that after detailed investigation, no material has been found to support the case of the complainant. Investigating Officer appears to have taken panchnama of the place where the incident had happened, had taken the clothes which the complainant had worn, had taken the mobile phone of the complainant as well as the details of the mobile phone of the accused, as also the details with regard to CCTV Footage at Junagadh near the place where the complainant allegedly regained consciousness, had also been recovered. The statements of 17 witnesses had also been recorded. Based upon the same, the Investigating Officer has opined that no material could be found in the investigation, which would support the allegations levelled by the complainant.