BHAVSINH DILAVARSINH RAIJADA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutors waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. Jignesh Nayak, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of the original complainant - respondent no.2.

(2.) This application has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as " Cr.P.C .") for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing CR No.I-27/2016 registered with Okha Marine Police Station, Devbhoomi Dwarka for offences punishable under Ss. 395 , 324 , 323 , 354 , 452 , 427 , 504 , 506(2) of the IPC.

(3.) Mr. Nangesh, learned advocate for the applicants state that no case of dacoity could be made out to the major allegations so made. Relying on the judgment in the case of Dharmendrabhai Nandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat , reported in 2011 (3) GLH 739, it is alleged that during the course of incident, the accused persons took away cash of Rs.2,500.00 which was in the pocket of the complainant. Mr. Nangesh submits that in view of the observations made in the above- referred judgment, such kind of act would not fall under the offence of dacoity as there is no such allegation of theft from the initial point while it is absolute case of political issue and the incident is alleged to have occurred when there was local election of Okha Nagarpalika where the complainant came to be elected from ward no.3 and thus, as the accused and the complainant were rival political parties, the complainant was forced to give resignation. Mr. Nangesh submits that as per her allegation, she was threatened and during the course, the accused is alleged to have taken Rs.2,500.00 from the pocket and damaged to her house valued at Rs.1,500.00 has been caused. Mr. Nangesh states that because of the intervention of community people, friends and family members, compromise has been arrived at and both the advocates submit that the settlement of the issues would bring peace and harmony between the parties. Therefore, in the larger interest of the society, the impugned FIR may be quashed and set aside.