BALDEVBHAI RATANSINHBHAI BRAHMAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Mr.Virat Popat for the applicant and learned APP Ms.Mehta for the respondent State. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of respondent No.2.

(2.) By way of this application, the applicant prays for quashing of FIR being I-C. R. No.219/2013 registered on 16/12/2013 with Tharad Police Station, District Banaskantha for the offences punishable under Ss. 307 , 427 , 506(2) , 143 , 147 , 148 and 149 of IPC.

(3.) At the outset, learned Advocate Mr.Popat submits that he would not press the present application for the offences other than the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of IPC. Learned Advocate Mr.Popat would take this Court to the allegations made in the FIR in detail and would submit that as far as the fact of assault is concerned, in the FIR it is alleged by the complainant that the applicant and his group had assaulted the vehicle of the complainant and broken the glass on the driver's side and whereas some dents were also caused on the bonnet as well as on the side of the vehicle in question. Mr.Popat would specifically draw the attention of this Court to an averment in the complaint where the complainant states that he has not received any injuries and whereas there was some damage to the vehicle of the complainant. Learned Advocate would submit that since no bodily injury had been caused to the complainant and from the nature of averments as made in the complaint, it clearly appears that even the complainant did not apprehend that the applicant had any intention to cause any bodily harm to the complainant, therefore, the present application may be considered insofar as the challenge to incorporation of the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of IPC in the impugned FIR. Mr.Popat is also replying upon the decision of learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.6079 of 2018 between Naginbhai Chandubhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat dtd. 26/4/2018, whereby the learned Coordinate Bench, referring to an earlier decision of this Court in case of Hanif Usmanbhai Kalva and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Misc. Application No.3120/2014), had spelt out the ingredients that would constitute an offence under Sec. 307 of IPC. Mr.Popat would submit that the ingredients as mentioned by the learned Coordinate Bench, is completely absent in the present instance, more particularly the incident does not show that there was any intention on part of the present applicant, nor was the assault of such a nature that reasonably would have caused any injury. In any case, learned Advocate Mr.Popat would reiterate that the fact, of the present complainant not receiving any injuries and of not mentioning in the complaint that the applicant or his associates had even attempted to assault the complainant, may be considered by this Court for quashing of the complaint insofar as the offence punishable under Sec. 307 is concerned.