KAILASHBEN BALUBHAI BHALIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.

(2.) By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Cr.P.C ."), the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being FIR No.11193002220202 registered with Jafrabad Marine Police Station, District: Amreli for the offences punishable u/s. 143, 341, 447, 337 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and all other consequential proceedings.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. B. M. Mangukiya appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner and her husband are social workers and are devoting their time in social service as well. Earlier the husband of the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the village and in the last election, petitioner has been elected as Sarpanch. The husband of the petitioner has approached the National Green Tribunal, Western Zone, since the Company of respondent no.2 are violating all environmental laws and causing great harm of the environment clearance. The Tribunal while hearing the matter appointed fact finding committee and directed to file a report and after considering the report, the Tribunal has cancelled the environment clearance certificate. Thereafter, on 23/3/2022, the petitioner was constrained to issue notice to respondent no.2 company to remove the stalking of soil since, it creates great disturbance to the environment and cases of several diseases to the villagers. He also submitted that the petitioner lost her father on 3/5/2022 and the last rituals of her father have been performed on 14/5/2022 and as per the custom prevalent in the caste of the petitioner, the petitioner in ordinary circumstances cannot leave the residence for about a month. Though the petitioner was not moving out of her residence because she lost her father, a FIR came to be lodged by respondent no.2 on 25/5/2022 and alleged that on 24/5/2022, the petitioner along with 7-8 other ladies obstructed the work of the company and prevented the operation of dozer. The next day when the complainant visited the site, he found that all the glasses of the dozers have been broken and caused a loss of Rs.1.00 lakh. He also submitted that FIR is abuse of process of Court and therefore, the petitioner has no other option but to approach this Hon'ble Court and also submitted that false and frivolous FIR has been lodged against the petitioner with malicious intent. He also submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are so vexatious that at night women have came out and threatened the engineers, supervisors and operation of the respondent no.2. He further submitted that from the FIR it clearly goes to show that this afterthought FIR has been lodged against the petitioner as a retaliation to the actions taken by the petitioner and her husband, who are objecting the activities of the respondent to the extent where they are causing serious damage to the environment. He also submitted that the petitioner is quite innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the crime, even the bare reading of the complaint and other facts and circumstances makes it clear that no offence is made out against the present petitioner. Therefore also, this is a fit case where discretion deserves to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.