FARUQ ABDULAZIZ CHHOTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of rule for respondent No.1 - State.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.P.P.Majmudar for the petitioner having not pressed the present petition insofar as offences punishable under Ss. 504 , 506 (2) and 114 of IPC, pressed this petition for quashing of charges only qua offences punishable under Ss. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "Atrocities Act"). The petition is disposed of as not pressed insofar as offences punishable under Ss. 504 , 506 (2) and 114 of IPC are concerned.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar having referred to the FIR would submit that the first informant has suppressed the earlier round of litigation between the parties. The accused are the owners of the disputed property. Recently, the competent Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No.159 of 2015 passed order of permanent injunction in favour of the accused restraining the first informant and others from interfering with the possession of the petitioner - accused. He would submit that in a dispute of possession, it is alleged that abusive words are hurled to the first informant, however, the averment made in the FIR fails to satisfy the ingredients of Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. He would submit that neither the intention nor within the public view words used in Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act are satisfied in the present case even if the FIR is taken as gospel truth on its face value. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar referring to the judgment of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and another - 2020 SCC Online SC 907 and pressing the ratio laid down therein would submit to allow this petition to quash the proceedings for the charges levelled under the Atrocities Act.