JAYDEEP PRABHUBHAI KALOTRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this application filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant, original accused No.2, has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned complaint being FIR No.11211056220281 registered with Surendranagar City B- Division Police Station u/s. 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506(2) and 384 of IPC and Sec. 135 of the G.P. Act.

(2.) The facts in brief are that on 12/10/2022 at around 2200 hrs. the original complainant, Rutubhai Lalji Aalru and one of his cousins - Abhishek Rameshbhai Kalotra reached his house. While the complainant was having dinner, said Abhishek Kalotra took the Scorpio Four-wheeler belonging to the complainant and drove to the area near 80" road. At around 2215 hrs., the complainant received a phone call from said Abhishek Kalotra who informed him that the applicant herein along with five other accused persons had stopped his Car and have picked up a quarrel with him. The complainant immediately rushed to the place; at that time, the applicant and other accused persons marched at the complainant and thereafter, assaulted him. As a result thereof, the complainant sustained bodily injuries and was rushed to the Hospital. In connection with the alleged incident, the impugned FIR came to be rejected. Hence, this application.

(3.) Heard learned advocate for the applicant and perused the documents on record. It appears from the allegations made in the impugned FIR that on the date of alleged incident when the complainant had reached the place on incident in pursuance of the telephone call received from his cousin - Abhishek, at that time, the applicant-original accused No.2 and original accused No.3, both rushed towards the complainant and reprimanded him for supporting the case of one Police Inspector - Y.M. Gohil. Immediately thereafter, they hurled abuses at him and thereafter, all the accused persons began to assault with. Considering the allegations made in the FIR, prima facie, the applicant appears to be involved in the commission of alleged crime. The applicant appears to be member of an unlawful assembly, who carried the common intention along with other accused persons. The object of the accused appears to reprimand the complainant for supporting one Y.M. Gohil. Thus, on a bare reading of the allegations made in the impugned FIR, the involvement of the applicant in the commission of alleged offence could not be ruled out.